Descent Into Postmodernist Hell
Most people will never study philosophy, and most would be unable to identify any particular idea as being the teaching of any particular philosopher. Nevertheless, most of the ideas people accept today were originally cooked up in the minds of philosophers, and propagated throughout society through the work of the MSM and our educators.
The bad ideas of the worst philosophers are taught to impressionable youths by crackpot tenured professors. They in turn become our "newsmen," "educators," "authors," and "entertainers," spreading their leftiest-collectivist ideas throughout society.
The nonsense that is being taught comes from the philosophers of the Vienna Circle (logical positivism devolved into postmodernism) and the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School (critical theory) which have melded into the relativist anti-reason anti-knowledge, "there is no absolute truth," politically-correct, multi-cultural, collectivism that dominates education and society today.
The destruction of the American mind is complete.
For those who have managed to maintain their minds and sanity, the extent of mental assassination occurring in American educational institutions which destroys any ability to either reason or understand anything is beyond comprehension. It perhaps can be illustrated—it cannot be described.
The following is extracted from a forum discussion about the subject of God. My argument with some others had concerned the question of belief in God, which I contended could not be discussed until the meaning of the word "God" was clearly defined. That discussion was already concluded when a self-style authority on philosophy, obviously a modern-day product of academia, decided to weigh in with his expertise.
[Comments in brackets are those I've added for this article.]
My posts to which the AE (academic expert) makes his first response is the following:
Generally, any term, abstract or otherwise, that cannot be defined, is meaningless. But, in this case, the subject is God, which is not supposed to be an abstract concept, like, "justice," or, "importance," but an actual existent, a concrete, like an angel or the universe.
The problem is, if I hand you a book and say, "believe this," and the book is written in a language you do not understand, you will rightly tell me you cannot believe it, because there is nothing for you to believe, you don't know what it means. You can neither reject it nor accept it.
It turns out that almost every definition or description of God contains words which the describer or definer admits they do not know the meaning of. If something is defined by words without meaning, what is one to believe? First there must be something understood, then one can decided to believe or not to believe it. No one can believe what has no meaning?
The AE's first intrusion:
"Generally, any term, abstract or otherwise, that cannot be defined, is meaningless." [Quoting me.]
Not really. I suppose it depends on who is doing the defining, but as any linguist will tell you many words are learned through usage *not* by using a dictionary. Try reading some Wittgenstein. Perhaps it's difficult defining certain words, but will they never be defined? I have trouble defining the term 'mind' but the term certainly has meaning.
["any linguist," must mean the "linguistic analysists of the logical positivist school (Vienna Circle), which is irrelevant anyway, because whether words can be defined or not has nothing to do with how we learn them.
Wittgenstein is one of the logical positivists and what little of his work can be comprehended is useless nonsense. No wonder he has trouble defining "mind."]
"But, in this case, the subject is God, which is not supposed to be an abstract concept, like, 'justice,' or, 'importance,' but an actual existent, a concrete, like an angel or the universe." [Quoting me.]
Whoever has thought 'god' wasn't an abstract term? It's almost by definition an abstraction. You seem misinformed on this point.
[This inability to understand the difference between the "abstract" and "concrete" or the meaning or words is the direct result of the philosophy he has been taught. It was not the "term" god that is the concrete, but what the term designates. Any third-grader would have been able to understand that, and I suspect, before his wacko professors messed up his mind, he could have too. Even though I gave clear examples illustrating the difference between concepts for the concrete and concepts for the abstract, he cannot understand that difference.]
"but an actual existent, a concrete, like an angel or the universe." [Quotes me.]
"Whoever told you this? The definition for 'god' that you are using is just simply wrong. That's why all those arguments about the undetectability of god are off base, since god is not a *physical* thing. This has all been covered long ago in various philosophical debates."
[A very short attention span is typical of what today's education system does to people's minds. My whole argument was actually that a definition of God is needed; I wasn't presenting one, and what I've written doesn't imply one. It is impossible to make any sense out of what he has written: "since god is not a *physical* thing..." he says, but if there is no definition for God, how does he know that, and what has that got to do with whether God is a concrete or an abstraction? Nothing.]
"It turns out that almost every definition or description of God contains words which the describer or definer admits they do not know the meaning of." [Quotes me.]
"You seem to be parroting simplistic 'arguments' that some Atheists use. All the words used in defining god are no less meaningful than other words used in English.
[He cannot read. I did not say the words were meaningless, although some of them are, but that the users admitted they didn't know what they mean. This "reading what one wants to read," is not a mistake, it is taught as part of
"First there must be something understood, then one can decided to believe or not to believe it. No one can believe what has no meaning?" [Quotes me.]
"Again, you are parroting an oversimplistic 'argument' that most philosophers rightly ignore. The problems you have just described with defining the term 'god' are identical to the same problems you have in defining *any* abstract term. If you want to reject all abstract terms, then feel free, and realize that you are more than likely a positivist. I would refer you to the well known literature on positivism and it's failures. Read some
Ayer followed by Wittgenstein and you might begin to understand the issues."
[Learn a word: "simplistic," or his variation, "oversimplistic." These words are used by sophists whenever they encounter a logically correct statement they dislike, but cannot refute. The words mean nothing, as they use them, but are used to imply that "the case is much more complex than the statement is capable of addressing," which complexity they, of course never explain, implying that "everyone knows it" so "you are ignorant," which is nothing but an ad hominem. The rest proves the point that this man's mind has been destroyed by the worst of philosophy which Ayer and Wittgenstein represent.]
My response to the above:
I've read Ayer, and what I could of Wittgenstein. They're wrong and very bad. You read them, and believed them, but that is not surprising for one who believes words do not have to have exact meanings. No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities, especially if they call themselves philosophers.
No wonder the world of philosophy is collapsing, its full of mystics, neo-platonists, and linguistic analysists.
Sorry, this mystic gobbledegook's gets no purchase here.
I thought that might shut him up, but the AE's back:
"I've read Ayer, and what I could of Wittgenstein. They're wrong and very bad." [Quotes me.]
"Hehe, no one expects a philosopher to be "right" or "wrong", especially someone like Wittgenstein who changed his philosophical outlook more than once in his life."
[This is what is being taught as philosophy. Wonder if he feels the same way about his banker, and his doctor.]
"You read them, and believed them" [Quotes me.]
No, it's not a question of being "right" or "wrong" but of awareness. They raise issues that are not addressed by an oversimplistic understanding of language.
[Once a persons mind has been convince there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong," nothing more rational is possible. Why does someone who does not think it is a question of "right" or "wrong," continue to argue?]
"but that is not surprising for one who believes words do not have to have exact meanings." [Quotes me.]
"You really are talking out of your hat now. Words have always had inexact meanings and to pretend otherwise is to display simple ignorance on how words are defined."
[Of course most words have very well understood meanings. Those whose minds have come under the influence of the arch-sophist, Hume, and those philosophers that followed, have no idea what words are, or what meaning is either. All the philosophers influenced by Hume, such as the logical positivists, have a primitive epistemology that literally makes reason and knowledge impossible. The clue is in the continued misuse of the term, "abstract."]
"As a start, define "exactly" the following words:
"atom, exact, entity, liquid, hot, mind"
[Since he does not believe these words have exact definitions, what does he expect, and how would he know if someone else's definition was right or not? Of course to this demented mind, whether it was right or wrong would not matter.]
"No doubt it is comforting to have someone reinforce one's cherished irrationalities" [Quotes me.]
"Actually, I'm Agnostic, so I really don't know what you are talking about here.
"No" - what do you mean?
"wonder" - what do you mean?
"the" - what do you mean?
"world" - what do you mean?
"of" - what do you mean?
"philosophy" - what do you mean?
"is" - what do you mean?
"collapsing", - what do you mean?
"its" - what do you mean?
"full" - what do you mean?
"of" - what do you mean?
"mystics", - what do you mean?
"neo-platonists", - what do you mean?
"and" - what do you mean?
"linguistic" - what do you mean?
"analysists" - what do you mean?
"Every term you used above has an "inexact" meaning depending on any number of factors..." [No comment.]
In one way, I feel very sorry for the individual that made those absurd arguments. I cannot imagine the horror of a mind that is never certain of the meaning of anything, that knows no right or wrong and never expects it in anyone else. I cannot imagine a nightmare that would be more frightening, yet for this individual, this world of meaninglessness is "reality." If you detected an unspoken but almost palpable sense of emotion in his responses, I can tell you what it is—it is terror, terror of a world with unnameable threats that he has no way to identify or deal with.
If this were a satire, written by Swift or Carrol, we would laugh at the obvious absurdity. It would be an enlightening and entertaining joke.
It is enlightening, but it is no joke. It is as serious and dangerous, as if the Queen of hearts had literally become incarnate in the persons of our university professors. This is not an unusual case; in those coming out of our universities today, it is ubiquitous.
If you want know what is wrong with the world, here is the answer: the world is filled with people who believe words have no exact meaning, or no meaning at all, they sneer, "Hehe, no one expects a philosopher to be 'right' or 'wrong'," and proceeds to tell you all answers are only "oversimplistic understandings of language".
Now, all of this may seem to be nothing more than a philosophical mistake, but it is actually a intentional moral evil. It is an attempt to escape reality. Everyone knows their words have meaning, exact meanings, and using them, like any other action, entails responsibility. They are responsible for what they say and what they think. If they can convince the world words have no meaning, then how can they be held responsible for anything, how were they to know? if words have no meaning, what is "right" and "wrong" after all. Once you have convince the world every correct understanding of things is an "oversimplistic" understanding, just anything can be put over.
This is no innocent business. It is nothing short of nihilism masquerading as the intellectual high-ground. These are linguistic terrorists, but unlike other terrorists, who at least have some objective or ideal, however irrational, these terrorists want to eliminate all ideals and values; their aim is nothing short of the destruction of the human mind.
[These people are teaching your children.]