RE: Satuday meanderings...Postmodernist math, and why it makes sense to idiots.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
This post is pertaining to 'factual' math , not theology, or any subjective topic, as such.
e.g. billy the posmodernist opens a book, sees 2+2=4 and then decides his opinion is more relvant than the information in the book
Two diferent areas.
0
0
0.000
Please provide a specific example of someone, anyone, seriously "disputing" mathematical axioms.
Also, I'm not "bringing up religion".
I'm making a specific reference to the very specific quote you made referring to THE READER taking precedence over THE AUTHOR.
For example, The Catholic Church strongly resisted translating "The Holy Scriptures" into English.
I think that qualifes as bringing up religion! lol.
I'm making a specific reference to the very specific quote you made referring to THE READER taking precedence over THE AUTHOR.
....reader response theory.
potmodernism states there is no reality or fact...ergo math is not fact. it is subjective, like everything else.
Past my bedtime, matey - but you appear to be misunderstanding ...?
Please provide a specific example of someone, anyone, seriously "disputing" mathematical axioms.
too late for me here- - but think abouit - if you ahve a school of philosophy spouting postmodenist theory,and that includes math is nnot fact - but won't stand by their philosphy - what does that tell you?
It's a load of bollcoks , just maybe?(not including the creative )
Sophistry at it's finest.
g'night matey.
You're making a critical category error.
QUALIA/OPINION iz opened to some range of interpretation.
QUANTA/FACT iz NOT opened to some range of interpretation.
Simply because "postmodernistcommiefascistmarxistsatheists" believe that words and by extension, groups of words have some margin of flexibility (vulnerable to OPINION), DOES NOT therefore mean that they don't believe in the immutability of COLD-HARD-EMPIRICAL-FACTS.
Nothing is immutable in the very core 'principles ' of post modernist theory.
That's tho whole point.
Everything can be twisted, to suit.
59 genders, bah blah...
Almost.
More specifically, MEANING (AND) MEANINGFULNESS "is not immutable".
Try this.
One person writes a law (legislator).
Another person enforces that law (police).
Another person interprets that law (judge).
Why don't people just go back to the senator (or clerk or corporation) who originally WROTE THE LAW (ORIGINAL AUTHOR) and ask for their OPINION/INTENT/CLARIFICATION??
the legal (justice) system really has become 'lawfare' - and counter the principals of justice.
K.I.S.S kind of laws, are much better.(commonlaw ish)
THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR IS NOT THE FINAL ARBITER OF "THE MEANING" OF THE TEXT.