Satuday meanderings...Postmodernist math, and why it makes sense to idiots.

in Deep Dives8 months ago

Understanding mental illness.

(i.e. Applying postmodernism in the world of logic and reality).

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

The spirit of postmodernism is a radical skepticism of reality.
Relativism , which rejects any idea of truth, knowledge, reason, or objectivity allows for even the most stupid of students to always ‘get it right’.

Postmodernism — with its origins in the writings of Derrida and Foucault- took hold in the departments of universities. English, literature, and other types of subjective areas.

That was where it belonged - and is a fantastic tool with which to explore the imagination.

Then something very strange happened.

Very strange, that is - if you did not adhere to the fact that the postmodernist movement was nothing more than the extension of failed marxist ideology.
Stupid people (pretending to be clever), were , according to people with actual brain cells, 'merely just having another go at it.’(marxist ideology).

Here's how it all went a bit wrong....

Literary criticism - in which the text is primary and the reader is secondary, has been 'deconstructed' as a reality and replaced, instead, by “reader response” theory.
This means that the written text becomes less important then the person who’s reading it. (honestly).
In some parallel universe, this -apparently- makes sense.

This inversion of reality has the effect of increasing the self-esteem of the reader while diminishing the importance of the writings of the great thinkers of the past.
And so in this way, the ego of the ‘victim mentality’ reader (one who’s too dumb to understand the text) - is placated.

And then something even more strange happened...

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

Postmodernist thinking tried to edge it’s way into math.

FACT:
Math (and science) are hard.
This caused big problems to fragile snowflakes with low IQ’s and high 'victim mentality' ratings.

What became very problematic for the idiots in the humanities, was that the subject matter (math ) cannot be faked.
Or felt. (FLM - Feeling Lots Matters).

Much of the social sciences can be faked due it's inherant subjectivity.
This is why the fake philosophy of postmodernism love things that can also be faked.
This is why they hate math - and anything else that's objective.

Math, beyond basic arithmetic - requires serious study.

(although many postmodernist refute this, stating: '2+2 is fucking hard work')

The discipline of science and math requires just that - discipline. And focus. These qualities has been proved beyond any doubt - to be 100% absent in every postmodernist known to modern history.

How did the Postmodernist deal with this uncomfortable fact?

To avoid pesky annoyances, such as thinking, focus, and effort - the lazy twats (known as Marxists), decided to try and change the rules of the game.
Ones to suit themselves. (and in doing so, make things a lot easier. For themselves).

The leftist mentality - and their preferred 'modus operandi', which is stealing other people's stuff, off those who are more productive and more intelligent . (rather than working at it for themselves).

This didn’t work in the world of math.
This pissed them right off.
On the other hand, their 'victim mentality ratings',(which they love) when right through the roof!

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

Rather than actually trying do any work - they just said that they couldn’t.

Not because they had some trouble finding the 'on' button on a calculator, (although that did cause some problems) but because....wait for it...

‘ math is a white colonialist metanarrative'.

(The Hindus , Babylonians, and various Asian cultures didn’t count for some reason).
…and thus, 'postmodern math' was trying to be developed.

Postmodern Science

Postmodern science is not science - it’s “anti-science”.
Some Postmodernists argue that science is not really knowledge at all. (honestly, I'm not joking).
These same people don't have much knowledge about anything in the real world either.

They speak in terms of 'chaos theory', the 'unpredictability of science', or uncertainty of evolution/devolution, etc.

These are valid philosophical arguments, to be fair.
They are the kind of arguments be tossed around in a stoned students bedsit, after Uni finishes.

They are not the basis on which to construct functioning civilizations.
(Such as 2+2 = 4, which tends to work much better).

For instance, a twat (philosophy professor) at Berkeley, maintains that what is called science in one culture is called voodoo in an-other.
Critics of this perspective pointed out that 'magic' in one culture (undiscovered science) highlights the fact that intelligence is highly correlated to using facts and not beliefs.

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

Th nutty Marxist professor went on to say:
“To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts — their craving for intellectual security (talk about projection!) in the form of clarity, ‘objectivity,’ or ’truth’— it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes.”

He didn react well when it was pointed that principles are a subjective construct, so therefore 'anyhting goes' is also a subjective construct, and, by definition, meaningless in the postmodernist world view.
Ergo, his word salad is also meaningless. (using his own postmodernist logic).

He was then taken back to his padded cell for afternoon tea and
Prozac
.

In his article “Anything Goes,” the nutty prof. explains how science works.
(No, seriously – he gives it a go…)
“In the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded.

People were amazed by his clarity of thought here, as it’s so seldom found in the postmodernist.
He actually describes the scientific method, as it is.
There was not one inference to oppression, guilt, or patriarchy in the entire sentence.

He went on:

“When a scientist promotes scientific data in support of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because the scientist has an agenda, the scientific establishment is very much politicized.

When someone raised their hand and asked:
“ Do you mean like man made climate change?”, He said:
“No! That’s settled science , you dumbass.
speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

In the world of postmodern science, mathematics is not immune from postmodern bullshit analysis.

In Ethnomathematics…(ffs! yes, really) , Marcia Ascher asserts that much of mathematics education depends upon assumptions of Western culture.
(assumptions like 2+2 = 4?).

She writes that no other culture “need share the categories triangle, right triangle, hypotenuse of a right triangle . . .” (even though they all do, you know, to do stuff).
She further questions, “Is a square something that has external reality or is it something only in our minds?”
(seriously, she wrote that down).

*** it must be noted that she shares the same padded cell as the dude mentioned above.

In conclusion:

In light of the postmodernist aversion to metanarratives (which they use all the fucking time !), and doubts about science being able to describe the real world, (which they interact with all the fucking time), when pressed for an explanation concerning the origin of life, postmodernists will assume anything but creationism as a possibility - which is highly paradoxical.(paradox in postmodernism is a constant),
Consider this :
That in an ‘anything is possible' philosophy, it is, somehow, impossible to have creationism...Mmmmm...

It must be entirely coincidental that Marxism denounces all religion.

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

Marx said ‘religion is opium for the masses’.

However, in recently discovered papers, it seems that his first draft said:

“ Why give the fuckers opium when they can have commie oxycontin?”

speech  Copy 2  Copy.jpg

Concluding my conlusion... (really, I am finishing this time).

Paul Kurtz.
In Humanist Manifesto 2000, Kurtz insists that rejecting objectivity is a mistake and that postmodernism is counterproductive, even nihilistic.

He omits to mention that while not all victims are marxists, all marxists are in a perpetual state of 'victim mentality'.

.....Kurtz writes:
“Science does offer reasonably objective standards for judging its truth claims. Indeed, science has become a universal language, speaking to all men and women, no matter what their cultural backgrounds.”

Lee Campbell, (Division of Natural Sciences at Ohio Dominican College), writes:
“The methods used in the sciences have produced powerful explanations about how things work and innumerable useful applications, including technology that
even its harshest critics would never be without.
Indeed, postmodernists use all the comforts and conveniences that modern science and technology provide,...

yet at the same time deny the foundational premises on which science is established.

This brings to light the contradictions within the Postmodern worldview and reveals it to be unreliable".

PS...and it is , 100%, a batshit crazy philosophy if applied outside of the creative realms...

Sort:  

I have so much trouble in these areas because.

  • I know math is wrong. (the assumption that you can always add 1 to a number makes math broken)
  • I know science is wrong. (after the Michelson-Morley (not quite an) experiment, everything went the wrong way, away from facts)
  • I know the ball earth model is wrong. (or light follows the curvature of the earth... which it might, which totally fucks up science, see previous note)
  • I know anthropology is wrong (because there are things on this planet that are made with technology more advanced then ours, and so it disposes of idea of we just came down from the trees...)

Basically, all the hard science are broken. Most beyond repair.

So, i do not believe in modern materialistic science because i believe in the aether and do not believe in black holes.
But, these post modernists don't believe in science because its hard.

I hate being on the same side as them.

I know math is wrong. (the assumption that you can always add 1 to a number makes math broken.

ok - lets test the 1+1 (+1,+1,...)...
You add one hive into my account - and if i DOES NOT increase by one, I'll give you two back.
Lets repeat it 10,000 times and come to a conclusion after that, based on the findings....???lol

So, i do not believe in modern materialistic science....
You believe in the science enough to utilize it. You have faith in it....the computer interface/phone.

Science is not fixed it evolves. thats called scientific process.

because i believe in the aether and do not believe in black holes.

I'm more of proponent of the 'electric unicers theory myself' (what little I know).

Don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' - you'll become a postmodern thinker! lolol

Loading...

I disagree with them, and I disagree with you, I am disagreeable...

(the assumption that you can always add 1 to a number makes math broken)

I agree that the concept of "infinity" is incoherent.

However, this does not automatically invalidate the EFFICACY of mathematics as a whole.

This means that the written text becomes less important then the person who’s reading it.

THIS SEEMS OBVIOUS.

For example, The Catholic Church strongly resisted translating "The Holy Scriptures" into English.

Why?

Because they didn't like the idea that INDIVIDUALS might have a DIFFERENT interpretation of the text than THE EXPERTS.

The meaning of words evolve over time.

This is why we're not still using dictionaries written in 1776.

(IFF) word usage and meaning evolve over time (THEN) the "text" itself cannot be the primary "authority".

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR.

(EITHER) THINK FOR YOURSELF (OR) TRUST THE EXPERTS.

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.

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...

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.