Ridiculous Nicholas

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:57:25 -0500

observationsandinsights:

I didn’t get a single question, not one since the last post. I guess this just means you all decided to see what I would come up with on my own, or there is no “you all” in the first place. Nevertheless, I cannot let this stop me, so I have used my horribly limited creativity to decide that this…

I’m not going to make a full argument here, but I did want to address one point. You seem to be under the impression that the Founders intended for the Constitution to stay more or less intact and be interpreted in the future to account for changes in society. That’s clearly in opposition to obvious observations and logic.

For one thing, if the Founders didn’t expect the Constitution to be changed significantly in the future, why would they have wrote in the mechanisms for amending it? Hell, why would they amend it ten times immediately after writing it?That clearly shows a willingness to change the document when necessary. If we’re talking Founding Fathers, Jefferson and Madison were proponents of many amendments other than the final ten. They were very obviously not dragging their feet here.

Logically, a document from 300 years ago that lays out how a government should run cannot be expected to work just as well as it did when it was first written. Today’s world is entirely different from America’s early days, and thus we must be open to changing with the times. I’m not saying the time period requires changes, simply that we must be willing to make changes if necessary. Along similar lines, this kind of government had never been tried before, and the Founders were aware of its imperfections. They were not fools, they knew that there would be some trial and error while things were sorted out. It’s called the “American Experiment” for a reason.

You seem worried that the core concepts of the United States written into the Constitution and Declaration would be in danger if revisions were made to the former. I see that as highly unlikely, whether or not actual opinions and policies support it, most Americans are very supportive of the beliefs that “all men are created equal” and have “unalienable rights”. I’d like to mention that we do agree that these should never be sundered from our nation in any way, however, I cannot realistically imagine a point where they would, in the predictable future, at least. Remember that many amendments have dealt with making these ideas a reality, so the revisionists, not the reactionaries, have a better score when it comes to protecting these core values. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that these ideas were somehow taken out of the Constitution or stripped of their meaning. If this was done by the people, it would be a failure of democracy. If it was done by the government? Jefferson very clearly laid out what should happen when government “becomes destructive of these ends.” Note that he includes the word “alter” in the proceeding sentence.

My interpretation of your argument is that you’re fearful of a bogeyman when there’s no real danger of it rearing its dastardly, unamerican head. You feel threatened by Postmodernism, and are hiding behind arguments that are essentially either glorified scare tactics or a pointless debate about objective or relative morals and values because your thesis itself is too weak to stand on its own in reality. I don’t mind the objecitivism/realtivism argument itself, I liked reading Eric’s and your take on it, but that being said there’s no reason to “combat” postmodernism if all you’re saving the world from is bad poetry. If you can’t refute my argument, could you at least give me some more examples of actual dangers of Postmodernism?

I am not assuming the Founders intended for all of it to remain intact, I’m assuming that the best course of action is to ensure that certain things do remain intact because they should and they must. Those are the ideas you identified, statements that supersede time. I do agree with you, on the other side of things, that those clauses which deal with specific situations fit to the times can be altered or abolished as necessary, no problem there. The problem comes when the two are no longer kept separate. It would be dangerous for us to start saying all of the Constitution must stay and can never be changed, we could never progress. However, I believe it is even more dangerous to go the other way and say that all of the Constitution is up for change. So I’m definitely not saying we shouldn’t change it, I’m just saying we need to make sure certain parts don’t change.

Saying today’s world is entirely different isn’t necessarily true. Yes, it is different, but especially if there are absolutes, there are definitely important similarities so be careful there. So in the end, yes, the “experiment” isn’t perfect, has, and will, need changes, and I have nothing wrong with amending it normally. Like I said, the problem I have is when you begin stripping or weakening the timeless guarantees that I believe should never change.

You say that you cannot imagine us ever losing those guarantees, and that I’m even scared of a “bogeyman.” The problem is, we have already begun to lose some of those guarantees, and that is why I sought to address this topic.

I believe the First Amendment guarantee that people should have the freedom to establish their own religions free of persecution should be absolute and never change. Unfortunately, this has changed, and it has been limited already. So your idea that you cannot see anything like this ever happening is wrong, it already started. In 1947 the Supreme Court divorced the First Amendment from its original purpose and reinterpreted it without regard to either historical context or previous judicial decisions (remember, this causes “injurious mistakes”). The result was that the Court abandoned the traditional Constitutional meaning of “religions” as a single denomination or system of worship and instead substituted a new “modern” concept which even now remains vague and nebulous, having changed several times in recent years. By this substitution, the Court created a new and foreign purpose for the First Amendment and completely rewrote its scope of protections and prohibitions. What does this look like in practice? I’ll give you examples that are most meaningful to me. The following are all court decisions:

1. It is unconstitutional for a historic memorial, even to the fallen or slain, to contain a cross as part of its display, no matter how many previous decades the memorial had been standing.

2. It is unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to continue being displayed in a solitary setting at public courthouses and government buildings - despite the fact that the Ten Commandments are a basis of civil law in the Western World and are depicted in multiple locations throughout the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal buildings.

3. It is even unconstitutional for a courtroom to display the Ten Commandments among a collection of other historic documents related to American law, such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, etc.

4. It is unconstitutional for a nativity scene to be displayed on public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays to prevent it from appearing religious.

5. It is unconstitutional for Christians to pray public prayers that reflect their own personal faith and beliefs.

The list goes on. I could name so many more. The fact of the matter is that this is restricting freedom of religion as the Founders had intended it, thereby exemplifying the danger of misinterpretation or disregard for original intent. Therefore, it’s not some unlikely danger, it is a very apparent danger and one that is increasing. My point is that the source of this reinterpretation without regard for original intent stems from Postmodernism. From the evidence I’ve provided that is a logical assumption, so wanting to combat Postmodernism for the sake of ensuring the continuation of liberties and guarantees I value is entirely justified. It has nothing to do with “saving the world from bad poetry.” Sure the poetry that goes along with postmodernism is weird, but I don’t really care about that. What I care about is the Relativist philosophy inherent to Postmodernism that could adversely affect the Constitution and society as a whole.

Now, you also said that I am “hiding behind arguments that are essentially either glorified scare tactics or a pointless debate about objective or relative morals and values because [my] thesis itself is too weak to stand on its own in reality.” First of all, let me say that personally attacking me and trying to belittle me isn’t going to help anyone, so stick to addressing the arguments themselves. You never once demonstrated how my arguments with either weak, pointless, or even scare tactics. If you read the continuation of my conversation with Eric, you will find it grounded in logic and rational, and clearly a legitimate argument, so I find your statement about the weakness of my argument entirely false. Perhaps you should consider that it only appears that way to you because you wish my argument were not true. So you asked about either refuting or giving real dangers and I believe I have done both. First I refuted the idea that there was no danger with examples, and in the process of those examples, I believe I gave you more proof of Postmodernism’s threats, though my original post alone gave enough evidence.

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:26:47 -0500

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism:

aflairfortheridiculous:

observationsandinsights:

aflairfortheridiculous:

observationsandinsights:

I didn’t get a single question, not one since the last post. I guess this just means you all decided to see what I would come up with on my own, or there is no “you all” in the first place. Nevertheless, I cannot let this stop me, so I have used my horribly limited creativity to decide that this…

Very Interesting, Nick, but I have a few problems with what you say, as well as some agreements. First off, if you believe in relativist theory, there technically aren’t any objective statements. Every “objective” statement is relative to some frame of reference. The problem of your logic is that the relativist admitted that there could be one objective statement. This is false. There is no such thing as an objective statement that is outside a reference point. Now, this may be taking an engineering point of view to the question, but if you define a relative reference point, many statements suddenly seem to become objective. This has effectively merged the philosophies by just realizing that if we realize that everything we can state is relative to whatever reference point we ourselves see things from, we can treat any statement as either objective or subjective based on that reference point. Just like there are really no concrete statements in physics or engineering, and everything is defined by your reference point, what everything in your system is relative to, so it goes in philosophy. Everything about your philosophy is defined relative to your reference point (which consists of your views, thoughts, experiences, etc. Basically how you look at the world).

I do completely agree with your point about poetry. I completely detest post-modern poetry and most post-modern prose. It’s either inane and silly or obnoxiously dark, and after a semester of creative writing I absolutely can stand no more dark angsty writing. I wrote a post modern poem for an english journal this year, and it was a blank piece of paper. They are so open to interpretation it would have been better had they not written anything at all. If you are trying to get a message out, why would you write something so stupid? Of course, my view is taken from my point of reference, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But they are wrong.

With your point about the constitution, where was the jefferson quote taken from? I won’t accept it as evidence unless it’s put in context. But I do agree that parts of the Constitution should stay the same and some should be developed for the times. But who is to say which part? We each have a unique view of the world, how can we definitively say what is the right or the wrong way to interpret it. None of us see the whole picture, or even through the same lens. it becomes a question of personal beliefs. Personally, I would stay as true to the original Constitution as possible, were I a supreme court justice. I would take a look a the case, look at the letter of the law, and decide on that and not on my personal views of the subject (though you could say my personal view is that the letter of the law should be obeyed at all times). This would lead to a lot of conflict with the silly view that “we should change the constitution because it’s three hundred years in the future”. Why should non time specific laws be changed just because the times have? There is no rhyme or reason for it.

First I will respond to the note on Relativism. I tried to simplify my argument last time against it for the sake of keeping my post of a readable length, but I’ll develop it a little more here for the sake of showing that my logic still holds. The first qualification is that there are obviously some relatives in this world. For example, the world does not always look the same. In some places you will see seasons changing and a variation of colors, all of which are subjective to your environment and time. In other places, all you’ll see is white, ice, and more ice. It will snow, and you will hardly notice seasons. Clearly, the observable world is not one giant absolute, it varies by environment. At the same time, there are absolutes. Objects of mass will exert forces of gravitation attraction with each other. This is true regardless of where you are in the universe. This is an absolute. The disagreement of Objectivism and Relativism is a disagreement about morals, not a disagreement about statements of fact or observation. A Relativist would say that there are no absolute morals, or there are no statements of right and wrong that apply universally. An objectivist would say that there are certain absolute morals that hold true for all people, regardless of their circumstances.

Before I go on, I will refute the first anti-objectivism argument everyone uses. People will say that simply looking at history, we can see that some cultures said that all murder was wrong, while others regularly allowed it for the sake of sacrifices to the gods (Aztecs). For that reason, “thou shalt not murder” cannot be an objective moral truth (or there cannot be any objective moral truths for that matter) because clearly there is a discrepancy here. The problem with that argument is simply that it misquotes objectivism. Objectivism does not say that all people hold the same morals. Objectivism says that there are certain moral truths that apply to all people, but just becuase it applies to you does not mean you necessarily follow it.

Moving on, you brought up the point of “if you believe in relativist theory, there technically aren’t any objective statements.” That is true, and that is how my logic disproved Relativism. I forced a Relativist argument into a statement of Objectivism.

Then you say that “every ‘objective’ statement is relative to some frame of reference.” This needs clarification. In the way you stated it, you assumed Relativism, that you have to look at everything as relative. On the other hand, you might have meant “relative” in a different sense of the word, as in every “objective” is from a given reference frame. In that case, you are correct, we do observe objective morals from a given reference frame, but the point of an objective moral is that it will be the same regardless of a reference frame. That is simply its definition, so you have done nothing to disprove it, merely misunderstood it. I move on.

Then you say, “There is no such thing as an objective statement that is outside a reference point.” The problem with that is once again that you assumed a Relativism opinion. In order to discuss the relative accuracy or correctness of Relativism and Objectivism, you cannot assume either of the ideologies, only refer to what they state.

You went on to speak about reference frames and how everything we see is from a particular perspective, no one disagrees with that. The disagreement is that Objectivists will say that regardless of you reference frame, this set of morals will always be true, while Relativists will say that you will never find a moral that is true in all cases. Your point about things being outside of your reference frame would be true if humans were the ones defining the morals. If we were the only ones who could set morals, obviously they could never supersede a given reference frame. However, Objectivists assume that those morals which are absolute are set out by a being greater than humans, thus God, so they are inherently designed to be outside of a reference frame.

So in that sense, I feel that nothing I said in my original post was factually or logically incorrect, per my elaborations and explanations in this post. Therefore, my conclusion that Objectivism is logical while Relativism is not still holds.

The poetry we clearly agree on.

Now on to the quote. Looking back to my source, I now see that I associated the quote with the name below it, whereas it belonged to the name above it. That quote was given by Noah Webster, another Founding Father, so I see no reason why this would change its impact or relevance in the slightest. In regard to its context, it merely addresses the idea of misinterpretation, with a particular emphasis on original intent. It is often used to point out the danger in how the Supreme Court has reinterpreted the First Amendment. Therefore, it seems the context is simply a general interpretation of what an author meant, though clearly he knew that what he said was applicable to legal documents such as the Constitution.

You went on to discuss which parts should stay absolute and which parts should change with the times, and I believe that question is simpler to answer than you assumed. You stated that there are some portions that supersede time. Those are the ones that should stay indefinitely. Other statements that are relative to the Founders’ specific circumstances (three-fifths compromise, dealing with militias, etc.) are subject to change as necessary. Therefore, you seem to have answered your own question. The parts that must stay as accurate to the original intent as possible are the parts that are timeless. Ideas laid out in the Preamble and the Declaration are great examples. Now, at this point you might say, what if people disagree on which are timeless? And they do. However, there are definitely some we can agree on, and that is why our government has succeeded so well throughout history compared to other governments. As for others, when you ask who is to decide what must stay the same, that is the power of the Supreme Court. As for what should stay the same, the answer is the objective morals, which builds off of the first topic of this post. If you can agree with me that Relativism is an illogical view and the Objectivism is true, then there must be some objective moral truths (all men are created equal, unjustified murder is wrong). Those ought to remain constant, those are timeless, and those, I pray, will remain part of our country’s legal code for as long as our God allows us to endure.

There are problems inherent in both of the philosophies being discussed here. The problem with objectivism is that it fails to take into account other points of view. What if there were some alien society where what we would consider a murder was necessary to propel the murderee into a the next, better stage of life (if you get the reference, good on you, I’m sure George will)? How can we project our set of values onto another culture that we don’t even understand, because all we can see is a brutal murder, when in fact it is the best thing that could be happening to the “victim”? We have no right to say that is wrong. Our “objective” moral values come completely to naught. Do I believe the Aztecs were right to do that? Of course not. Did they? Obviously the overwhelming majority of society accepted this in Central and South America at the time (as did our European ancestors a long time ago). For their society it was the perfectly natural and right thing to do, and we have no right to force that viewpoint on someone else. So here we see an example of Objectivism’s inherently incorrect status. Morality is defined by society. God may believe certain things are right, and certain things are wrong, but he gave us free will to decide what those are. And the morals and ethics that society decides are best for the survival of the society become what that society believes in and enforces with laws and religious texts such as the bible.

The premise of your logic is still flawed. There is no way a Objectivist could get a Relativist to admit that their is a single objective fact. This runs counter to the philosophy itself, and if you convince a Relativist to say this they have changed philosophies and are no longer Relativist. The second one admits there is an objective fact, one falls into the philosophy of an Objectivist. And if this is true, there is no logical reason to have the argument, because one has already convinced one’s opponent that the argument is true. Also, your argument of concrete scientific facts proving the objectivity of certain statements is false. Scientists themselves admit that all of their Laws and Theories could be wrong. We simply do not know how to describe the universe in any better way. Some scientist tomorrow could make the discovery that would reform the Laws of Physics as we know them. No fact is truly absolute.

This leads directly into the problem with Relativism. Simply put, pure Relativism is useless. If we refuse to accept any fact as objective, we become mired in a sea of indecision. Our minds would simply go blank with all the possibilities and nothing would get done. Pure relativism is dangerous. Therefore, we take into account all of our experiences and stimulus from the outside world, such stimulus being given to us by either people/animals who are doing the same thing (and receiving stimulus from us) or non-living (from our point of view) natural forces. Having taken these factors into account, we assemble a set of statements and thoughts and reactions which we define as objective to our point of view. We base our morals on the examples we receive as we live our lives. We base our actions on what the people we respect would do (or not do, as the case may be). In our personal system, those unique statements are true. This can be applied for any living creature. Who is wrong? I would define this in two ways. First, there are the people who the great majority of society consider to be evil, and from that point of view we get a set of people who do the “wrong” thing. But in this set their are two people: the people who believe what they are doing is right, from their point of view, and the people who have a view of what is right, again from their point of view, but deliberately go against that for some reason or another. The latter I would say are truly wrong, because they are wrong in both the point of view of society and the point of view of themselves. the former are unfortunately lumped by society into the “wrong” category, but if society took the time to understand, they would realize that the former person believed they were doing the right thing. These people should be helped to understand what society believes to be right and why what he/she was doing was “wrong”. Am I right about any of this? Many would say I was wrong, many would say I was right. But from my point of view, I believe I have made the best conclusion based on my own logic and frame of reference.

But while pure relativism causes paralysis, pure objectivism leads to destruction. We become so enamored by the fact that we believe our personal beliefs to be right that we force those beliefs on other people. This cuts both ways, liberal and conservative. The conservatives attempt to force their own views, whatever they may be, onto people without those views. The liberals attempt to force onto the conservatives the fact that everyone should be allowed to believe what they want. In the context I would like to think of it, both of these situations are wrong. People should be allowed to think whatever they want to think. We can’t force them to think one way or another.

And your quote was from jefferson, or so you said in the post. Here is the quote again: “Don’t just take it from me. Here’s what Jefferson said:

‘In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which in particular passages… obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are… being now used in a sense different from that which they had… [and thus] present wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced…. mistakes may be very injurious.’”

While this does mean that reinterpretation is inevitable, it is wrong to say whether individual interpretations are “wrong” or not. If you believe something is wrong about the interpretation, the only way to change it is to convince the people who believe it is right that it is wrong with reasonable argument. That way the system in which that particular viewpoint is “right” has been increased. The more people you convince, the large that system becomes, and once it hits a majority of society, that can be changed. Simply forcing our views on other people or cultures (like we did with the American Indians, the Vietnamese, etc.) is a brute force method that can only lead to increased resistance. Were I to become Supreme Court Justice, I would have convinced the majority of the people involved in the decision that my views were correct. In this context I could operate to change the society in the way I thought best, because I would be safe in the knowledge that many would accept these changes and society would move in what I thought to be a better direction. This corresponds to anyone else who came into an elected position of power.

The end result of this is that the correct, from my point of view, philosophy is a melding of relativism and objectionism, in that neither can exist without the other and swinging purely one way or the other only leads to disaster.

First of all, the if-then condition you proposed with aliens, or any if-then conditional for that matter, brings the end of all rational conversation. When we start bringing in ridiculous hypotheticals of “what if…” we will never get anywhere.

I got your reference to Crime and Punishment, but if you remember the story, Dostoevsky demonstrates the danger of that theory and vividly shows that it is not a plausible theory. I’m never projecting my morals onto a culture I don’t understand, I’m simply proposing that there are objective morals designed to apply to everyone, where everyone includes all humans living on earth, an earth which I understand just as well as anyone. So there is nothing wrong with projecting those ideas.

The main problem you will find if you re-read your last post is that you say everything from an inherently Relativist perspective. Though you claim to combine Objectivism and Relativism, the problem is they cannot combine at all, and your attempts to combine them ignore their actual definitions. As you said, once a Relativist accepts an objective, he is now an Objectivist and not a Relativist. You also tried to say that things are objective on a relative scale, but that is simply overcomplicating to the point of incorrect logic. Once you assume a certain perspective, you can make statements about that situation, those statements are called relative because they are from a given perspective, and relativists assume a different perspective would see a different set of morals. However, within a fixed reference frame, of course everything appears objective, if you must use that word, that is simply a consequence of making a coherent statement. However, the fact that you assume you would make a different set of statements in a different perspective makes it relativist. By their strict definitions, it is impossible for objectivism and relativism to mix.

You say morals are defined by society. If that is true, then Relativism must be true. But this turns into circular logic because it is the Relativists that say morals are defined by society. Objectivists say certain morals supersede society. Therefore, as I said last time, you cannot make a valid argument on this topic as long as you are assuming a position of either Relativism or Objectivism. To make a valid argument, you must assume neither perspective.

You say, “Your argument of concrete scientific facts proving the objectivity of certain statements is false.” You would be correct if I had used that argument, but I didn’t. I was making the clarification that though we make statements of absolute fact, we should not confuse this with Objectivism because Objectivism deals with morals, not facts. It is for this reason that Relativists can make certain absolute statements: when I drop something it will fall toward the earth (obviously oversimplified but you get my point). However, that is not a moral so that does not violate Relativism. By extension, when we discuss Relativism v. Objectivism we can only make statements of fact, observation, and logic. As soon as we make statements that are the assumptions of either side or statements of morality, we violate our own arguments. That is the flaw of your argument. You have failed to recognize that you are approaching the argument already under the constraints of one of the worldviews.

With that in mind, my logic is not flawed. You are correct that as soon as a Relativist assumes and absolute he is no longer Relativist, that is the premise of the refutation. The point is, the basis of relativism makes an absolute statement. Saying, “There are no absolute morals and you ought not to assume that your morals from one perspective apply to someone in a different perspective” is making an absolute statement on what you should do, a moral. This is called self-refutation.

You go on to say, “Pure objectivism leads to destruction. We become so enamored by the fact that we believe our personal beliefs to be right that we force those beliefs on other people. ” Keep in mind that Objectivism states that there are certain morals that are true for everyone. It’s not that we should take the morals we believe and force them onto everyone else, it’s that we should discover (by exploration, analysis, or possibly even religion) what morals are absolute and try to show others the same. We do not need to persecute others for not following these morals (unless it is demanded for society’s continuation), but we should try to help others see that there are objective truths. So you are right, we can’t force people to think a certain way, but we should try to arrive at a better understanding of truth through good discussion. If we know someone to be in error, we should try to help them realize their error.

My quote was from Webster, as I clarified in my last post, I misattributed it to Jefferson. You said afterward, “It is wrong to say whether individual interpretations are ‘wrong’ or not.” First of all, re-read what you said. You refuted yourself. Secondly, you assumed Relativism in this statement. And thirdly, by associative property, Relativism refutes itself. Let me demonstrate. You said it is wrong to say an interpretation is “wrong.” I said a particular interpretation was wrong, so you are telling me I’m wrong for that, but that is entirely hypocritical. You are doing exactly what you are telling me not to do in the process of telling me what not to do. Secondly, the idea that we cannot say anything is wrong assumes that it could be right from a different perspective, an entirely Relativist opinion. Finally, the associative rule is self-explanatory, so thank you for helping me demonstrate the self-refutation of Relativism.

Now, before you reply again, please be sure not to write from either a Relativist or an Objectivist perspective, or else your arguments are all void. In order to critically analyze the two, you need to be independent of the two for the duration of this conversation. Also, if you re-read what you wrote, much of what I didn’t address in this reply comes from assumptions of Relativism, so that is why I left it alone, it is null and void if we are comparing Relativism and Objectivism.

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:33:05 -0500

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism:

aflairfortheridiculous:

observationsandinsights:

I didn’t get a single question, not one since the last post. I guess this just means you all decided to see what I would come up with on my own, or there is no “you all” in the first place. Nevertheless, I cannot let this stop me, so I have used my horribly limited creativity to decide that this…

Very Interesting, Nick, but I have a few problems with what you say, as well as some agreements. First off, if you believe in relativist theory, there technically aren’t any objective statements. Every “objective” statement is relative to some frame of reference. The problem of your logic is that the relativist admitted that there could be one objective statement. This is false. There is no such thing as an objective statement that is outside a reference point. Now, this may be taking an engineering point of view to the question, but if you define a relative reference point, many statements suddenly seem to become objective. This has effectively merged the philosophies by just realizing that if we realize that everything we can state is relative to whatever reference point we ourselves see things from, we can treat any statement as either objective or subjective based on that reference point. Just like there are really no concrete statements in physics or engineering, and everything is defined by your reference point, what everything in your system is relative to, so it goes in philosophy. Everything about your philosophy is defined relative to your reference point (which consists of your views, thoughts, experiences, etc. Basically how you look at the world).

I do completely agree with your point about poetry. I completely detest post-modern poetry and most post-modern prose. It’s either inane and silly or obnoxiously dark, and after a semester of creative writing I absolutely can stand no more dark angsty writing. I wrote a post modern poem for an english journal this year, and it was a blank piece of paper. They are so open to interpretation it would have been better had they not written anything at all. If you are trying to get a message out, why would you write something so stupid? Of course, my view is taken from my point of reference, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But they are wrong.

With your point about the constitution, where was the jefferson quote taken from? I won’t accept it as evidence unless it’s put in context. But I do agree that parts of the Constitution should stay the same and some should be developed for the times. But who is to say which part? We each have a unique view of the world, how can we definitively say what is the right or the wrong way to interpret it. None of us see the whole picture, or even through the same lens. it becomes a question of personal beliefs. Personally, I would stay as true to the original Constitution as possible, were I a supreme court justice. I would take a look a the case, look at the letter of the law, and decide on that and not on my personal views of the subject (though you could say my personal view is that the letter of the law should be obeyed at all times). This would lead to a lot of conflict with the silly view that “we should change the constitution because it’s three hundred years in the future”. Why should non time specific laws be changed just because the times have? There is no rhyme or reason for it.

First I will respond to the note on Relativism. I tried to simplify my argument last time against it for the sake of keeping my post of a readable length, but I’ll develop it a little more here for the sake of showing that my logic still holds. The first qualification is that there are obviously some relatives in this world. For example, the world does not always look the same. In some places you will see seasons changing and a variation of colors, all of which are subjective to your environment and time. In other places, all you’ll see is white, ice, and more ice. It will snow, and you will hardly notice seasons. Clearly, the observable world is not one giant absolute, it varies by environment. At the same time, there are absolutes. Objects of mass will exert forces of gravitation attraction with each other. This is true regardless of where you are in the universe. This is an absolute. The disagreement of Objectivism and Relativism is a disagreement about morals, not a disagreement about statements of fact or observation. A Relativist would say that there are no absolute morals, or there are no statements of right and wrong that apply universally. An objectivist would say that there are certain absolute morals that hold true for all people, regardless of their circumstances.

Before I go on, I will refute the first anti-objectivism argument everyone uses. People will say that simply looking at history, we can see that some cultures said that all murder was wrong, while others regularly allowed it for the sake of sacrifices to the gods (Aztecs). For that reason, “thou shalt not murder” cannot be an objective moral truth (or there cannot be any objective moral truths for that matter) because clearly there is a discrepancy here. The problem with that argument is simply that it misquotes objectivism. Objectivism does not say that all people hold the same morals. Objectivism says that there are certain moral truths that apply to all people, but just becuase it applies to you does not mean you necessarily follow it.

Moving on, you brought up the point of “if you believe in relativist theory, there technically aren’t any objective statements.” That is true, and that is how my logic disproved Relativism. I forced a Relativist argument into a statement of Objectivism.

Then you say that “every ‘objective’ statement is relative to some frame of reference.” This needs clarification. In the way you stated it, you assumed Relativism, that you have to look at everything as relative. On the other hand, you might have meant “relative” in a different sense of the word, as in every “objective” is from a given reference frame. In that case, you are correct, we do observe objective morals from a given reference frame, but the point of an objective moral is that it will be the same regardless of a reference frame. That is simply its definition, so you have done nothing to disprove it, merely misunderstood it. I move on.

Then you say, “There is no such thing as an objective statement that is outside a reference point.” The problem with that is once again that you assumed a Relativism opinion. In order to discuss the relative accuracy or correctness of Relativism and Objectivism, you cannot assume either of the ideologies, only refer to what they state.

You went on to speak about reference frames and how everything we see is from a particular perspective, no one disagrees with that. The disagreement is that Objectivists will say that regardless of you reference frame, this set of morals will always be true, while Relativists will say that you will never find a moral that is true in all cases. Your point about things being outside of your reference frame would be true if humans were the ones defining the morals. If we were the only ones who could set morals, obviously they could never supersede a given reference frame. However, Objectivists assume that those morals which are absolute are set out by a being greater than humans, thus God, so they are inherently designed to be outside of a reference frame.

So in that sense, I feel that nothing I said in my original post was factually or logically incorrect, per my elaborations and explanations in this post. Therefore, my conclusion that Objectivism is logical while Relativism is not still holds.

The poetry we clearly agree on.

Now on to the quote. Looking back to my source, I now see that I associated the quote with the name below it, whereas it belonged to the name above it. That quote was given by Noah Webster, another Founding Father, so I see no reason why this would change its impact or relevance in the slightest. In regard to its context, it merely addresses the idea of misinterpretation, with a particular emphasis on original intent. It is often used to point out the danger in how the Supreme Court has reinterpreted the First Amendment. Therefore, it seems the context is simply a general interpretation of what an author meant, though clearly he knew that what he said was applicable to legal documents such as the Constitution.

You went on to discuss which parts should stay absolute and which parts should change with the times, and I believe that question is simpler to answer than you assumed. You stated that there are some portions that supersede time. Those are the ones that should stay indefinitely. Other statements that are relative to the Founders’ specific circumstances (three-fifths compromise, dealing with militias, etc.) are subject to change as necessary. Therefore, you seem to have answered your own question. The parts that must stay as accurate to the original intent as possible are the parts that are timeless. Ideas laid out in the Preamble and the Declaration are great examples. Now, at this point you might say, what if people disagree on which are timeless? And they do. However, there are definitely some we can agree on, and that is why our government has succeeded so well throughout history compared to other governments. As for others, when you ask who is to decide what must stay the same, that is the power of the Supreme Court. As for what should stay the same, the answer is the objective morals, which builds off of the first topic of this post. If you can agree with me that Relativism is an illogical view and the Objectivism is true, then there must be some objective moral truths (all men are created equal, unjustified murder is wrong). Those ought to remain constant, those are timeless, and those, I pray, will remain part of our country’s legal code for as long as our God allows us to endure.

Stop This Train

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:46:32 -0500

Stop This Train

Postmodernism

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:35:45 -0500

I didn’t get a single question, not one since the last post. I guess this just means you all decided to see what I would come up with on my own, or there is no “you all” in the first place. Nevertheless, I cannot let this stop me, so I have used my horribly limited creativity to decide that this post will be about Postmodernism.

Before I embark on an expedition of the way in which humans express ideas and relate to the observable world, I would like to start by apologizing. If I apologize ahead of time, I figure that excuses me from offending a few people in the near future. Unfortunately, my views of Postmodernism do not include reverence, awe, respect, or any positive regard whatsoever. In fact, I think Postmodernism is one of the most destructive and dangerous ideas existing in modern society. And that is why I need to apologize. Those are strong words, and many people faithfully hold to the theory of Postmodernism. What I say to you is do not be offended. I am attacking an idea, not you. You should feel free to disagree, in fact, please do so for the sake of good conversation, but do not feel that I am insulting you or trying to make anyone look stupid. I am simply trying to critically analyze the world in which I live.

Postmodernism is the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place (thank you Wikipedia). Now, Postmodernism is also more generally an era of literature, and it has other definitions and ideas it embodies, but at the heart of Postmodernism, you will always find this idea: that everything is relative. By extension, if everything we experience is relative to our environment, it does not matter what the author or creator of a work intended, what matters is how we experience the art.

There are some examples where this is just fine. Some poems do not have any apparent meaning or purpose, and are simply up for interpretation. Now, I have no idea why anyone would be interested in spending time writing such a poem, but they already exist, and in those cases, sure, feel free to interpret away in ridiculous, disparate ways.

That being said, in almost every other case, Postmodernism can be dangerous. Refusing to consider the author’s intent and only focusing on the reader’s interpretation can lead to terrible misunderstandings. Though some people might say this is no big deal, that Postmodernism only encapsulates a small portion of the artistic population, this is not true. Many of the ideas of Postmodernism have crept into society and become engrained in the people of modern culture. All around me every day I can see pieces of Postmodernism is other’s people’s opinions, words, ideas, and lifestyles.

Clearly, it is no small deal. The first problem with Postmodernism is the Relativism it implies. By saying that everything is up to interpretation since everyone’s perspective and environment is different, Postmodernism assumes the doctrine of Relativism, which states that there are no objective truths. Personally, I find Relativism silly because it cannot stand up to the most basic logic. Let me demonstrate.

Relativist: “There are no objective truths.”

Objectivist: “Is it possible that there is one objective truth?”

Relativist: “No.”

Objectivist: “Are you absolutely sure?”

Relativist: “Okay, I guess there can be one absolute, and that absolute is that there are no other absolutes.”

Objectivist: “Is it possible that there are two absolutes?”

Relativist: “No.”

Objectivist: “Are you absolutely sure?”

And as you can see, the logic falls apart, there must be some absolutes in this world. So in that regard, Postmodernism is illogical. The second problem is not simply one of a lack of logic, but one of danger. Postmodernism is a dangerous idea, and this is most horribly apparent in the Supreme Court (hey, we might as well start at the top). Many of the newer judges on the Supreme Court and others interpreting the Constitution have started to express the ideas of Postmodernism, however subtly. They like to talk about how it is “up to interpretation” and how it needs to change to fit the times. Obviously, certain components of the Constitution are not still applicable (such as the three-fifths compromise), but the fact remains that there are certain ideas that should, and must remain absolute. If our Supreme Court Judges begin deciding that it is all open for reconsideration in light of our new circumstances and environment, our Constitution can be ignored in some cases, rewritten in others, or possibly even eradicated.

Don’t just take it from me. Here’s what Jefferson said:

“In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which in particular passages… obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are… being now used in a sense different from that which they had… [and thus] present wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced…. mistakes may be very injurious.”

This implies that we must be very careful when interpreting the Constitution not to misread it. Expressions today are not the same as they were 224 years ago. However, Jefferson does NOT say that this means we should rewrite it when it gets old, he says that we must be all the more careful to properly interpret it so as not to make injurious mistakes. I think it needs to be said again, “Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced…. mistakes may be very injurious.” Jefferson would have hated Postmodernism, even cursed it if it had existed in his time. Postmodernism rests on the idea that things can be reinterpreted in different ways, but clearly this is dangerous, especially with the Constitution. Because of the way Postmodernism has infiltrated our culture, I worry for the future. If we begin to lose sight of the idea that some things need to remain absolute, we will no longer entirely believe that “All men are created equal” and that there are certain “unalienable rights.”

In the end, certain parts of Postmodernism are fine. If you want to write in stream of conscious, go knock yourself out, but ideas of Relativism and reinterpretation have the potential of unravelling the framework of the single most successful society in history. Despite our flaws, the American system has been the most successful, and let us not forget that we were founded on ideas that superseded time and place, a belief that Postmodernism threatens. For that reason, I believe firmly that Postmodernism is a danger and needs to be combated, if not eradicated.

Research-Induced Busyness and Questions?

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:23:12 -0500

So last Friday I spent nearly ten straight hours programming in MATLAB for my research project. It was probably one of those things I can only do every few months or maybe even just once a year. That kind of dedication would be unhealthy on a regular basis. Nevertheless, it was extremely constructive as a one-time thing. I literally solved almost half of my entire project. It was great. However, devoting that much time to research on the same weekend as my Academic Team Regional Tournament and the Super Bowl left so little time that I barely had the chance to do my other homework, let alone write on my blog. In the end, I was just very, very busy recently, so this was the first chance I had to write. Along the same lines, I had fun typing the work “busyness.” It’s so close to “business” but is pronounced just slightly different and has a completely different meaning. Semantics is cool.

My other goal right is to find a way to make sure I have great topics for later posts. I said in my very first post that I would be open to almost any ideas (with a few necessary limitations) and that I would enjoy giving any legitimate idea the amount of consideration it deserves. In case that wasn’t explicit enough, I just wanted to make it clear that I am extremely open for questions. You guys asking me questions means I spend less time trying to think of something exciting to write about. Instead, if you have a thought-provoking question, or even just a question you’ve always wondered what my answer to it would be, please ask.

Unknowledgeable, by our standards, doesn't mean that the ancient Greeks, or any similar culture, were less intelligent than us. The Allegory really doesn't build off anything, so it's entirely up to the individual's intelligence, not the state of his society. I'm not even sure ours is all that much superior, anyway. You mentioned a religious belief that contradicts what we now know as scientific fact, but today we still have people who believe very similar things, even when the knowledge is available to them. I'd argue that's far worse.

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:02:30 -0500

Yes, but the amount of unreasonable beliefs back then was significantly greater than it is now. We still have people who know little and believe unsupported and even refuted ideas, but it is much less common today than it was back then. My point was simply, that to have the mental facility to sift through all that foolishness surrounding him and make a conclusion like this is impressive, and I would say slightly more impressive to have done it then than to have done it today.

Also, yes, I agree, those few people who still believe that silliness despite the available knowledge are even worse. They just exhibit even more egregious ignorance.

I was wondering exactly why you found it impressive that Plato thought up the Allegory of the Cave so long ago. Obviously he was rather intelligent for any time, but that kind of thought seems to be rather basic, in that it doesn't build off of other thoughts or theories. It takes a great mind to come up with it, but it would be just as impressive if it had been thought up in Ancient Greece or yesterday.

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:17:47 -0500

Perhaps it would be just as amazing now, but then again, I feel the time period does add a little bit to the impressiveness. For instance, back then most people thought lightning occurred because the gods were fighting. Today, we are much more educated and have access to much more general knowledge. As a result, you would expect this to leave people with more time to think about greater things such as the ideas in The Allegory of the Cave. Plato is impressive because he thought of it amidst a very unknowledgeable people.

Nickkkk. This is Rahi :)
sorry to be a creeper, but im just curious...what college are you going to?

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:15:33 -0500

I won’t know until April. I applied to Virginia Tech, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon, Rensselaer, Princeton, and Duke, all Regular Decision. Therefore, I won’t know until they all submit their admissions decisions, which all fall around April 1. I don’t really have a definitive favorite yet, so if I get into more than one, I’ll have quite the decision to make.

Gourmet Foods and Plato

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:30:22 -0500

This semester I am enrolled in Gourmet Foods, quite obviously because it is a class about eating. What more needs to be said? However, on the first day, our teacher told us that if we complete all of the recipes correctly, work together with our groups, make something that tastes good, and clean up thoroughly afterward, we will receive a 95% for the day. Now, this may just be a crazy thought, but I seem to have this assumption that if you fulfill all of the requirements thoroughly, you receive a 100%. She went on to tell the class that to get a 100%, you must go above and beyond (e.g. helping her clean up her workspace, helping her fold laundry, etc.) First of all, good for her making sure that her elective class doesn’t turn into some joke of a blow-off class. I admire teachers that take measures to ensure that students don’t take the class too lightly. That being said, completing the assignment thoroughly should earn a 100%. Maybe the requirements for a 100% should be stringent, but “going above and beyond” implies beyond the requirements or beyond the regular grade. ”Above and beyond” shouldn’t be necessary to earn a full completion grade, that defies the rules of logic, something I cannot let go unnoticed. Alas, we cannot beat the system, so I am left to toil away in Gourmet Foods nearly as diligently as an AP class just to ensure I don’t hurt my GPA.

On an obviously related topic, today I got to discuss Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. If you haven’t read it yet, you probably will have to in college, but even so, I think you should read it now. It’s deeply philosophical, yet usefully practical. I love discussing the intricacies of why a person would be so resistant to the truth and why it could be nearly impossible to change a person so long engrained in a lie. It is difficult enough to understand the profundity, and afterward, I am always left in admiration of Plato. I love philosophy and frequently discuss abstract ideas, but I would be lying if I told you I was capable of coming up with an idea as incredible as The Allegory of the Cave all on my own. The most amazing part: Plato did it more than 2400 years ago. That is to be admired.

Just for starters...

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:43:30 -0500

As this is my first post, it seems logical that I ought to start by explaining myself. You’ll see the title “Ridiculous Nicholas” and perhaps wonder why that’s there. The simple answer is that my mother called me that a couple of times and I appreciated the slant rhyme. The other answer is that it combines my name “Nicholas” with an adjective that lets me get away with just about anything.

I tried for the hardest time to come up with a clever URL for this blog, but each idea failed for one reason or another. In the end, “observationsandinsights” seemed harmless enough, even if it wasn’t as creative as I had wished.

Well since made sure to spend the least amount of time possible setting up my account, there is very little else to explain. I think perhaps the last thing left to do is to give some sort of honest description of the purpose of this blog and where it is likely to end up. Once again there is a simple answer: sometimes, the 140 characters allowed on Twitter is not enough. Occasionally I’ll have terrible ideas that I think are great and need to be shot down before I like them too much. Other times I might actually have useful ideas and advice. Still other times I might simply have something that needs to be said or a conversation that needs to be started.

For the sake of open discussion, I will leave my blog open to nearly every idea. Unnecessary inappropriateness, childish immaturity, and other obviously useless concepts would be a waste of time so I see no value in including any of those in a blog. Beyond that, every legitimate idea deserves consideration. Most of the ideas here will either come from questions, things I’ve read, or perhaps even comments I have heard. In those cases, people around will likely inspire a post without even knowing it.

The final warning regards who I am. Inevitably, my personality will impact the way that I answer questions or discuss ideas. For those of you that know me, you should expect no less. For those of you that do not know me, well, you will have the joy of discovering the true nature of my personality through quite a bit of “Ridiculous Nicholas.”

Ridiculous Nicholas

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Ridiculous Nicholas: Postmodernism

Stop This Train

Postmodernism

Research-Induced Busyness and Questions?

Nickkkk. This is Rahi :) sorry to be a creeper, but im just curious...what college are you going to?

Gourmet Foods and Plato

Just for starters...

Nickkkk. This is Rahi :)
sorry to be a creeper, but im just curious...what college are you going to?