Trump Scandal Thread (Past, Present, and Future)

I’m just going to close it off by suggesting that Post Modernist impulse of skepticism towards meta narratives and hostility towards language and definitions is a very different impulse from the Trumpists’ impulse towards teleological suspension and surrendering of doubt in favor of zeal for the sake of creating a central meta narrative canon (or QAnon as they are.)

(By the way, this makes Trumpists modernists. Or Reactionary. Or nihilists. Probably the latter for the most part.)
 
Are you saying that the progressive/socialist left doesn't present a zero sum game approach?


The zero sum mentality exists on both ends of the spectrum. And occasionally scattered throughout. But conservative is vastly more zero sum than progressivism is. Politically progressive is pretty much the anti0thise of zero sum thought.

The difference is in thinking that to make some better off you must make others worse off, that's zero sum. And it exists throughout conservative policy, and often rhetoric. The idea that you can make the whole better off, but some might be a little worse off, that's positive sum. And it exists throughout progressive policy. Although is under used in progressive rhetoric.

To understand the reality of it, you have to understand where the politics and the rhetoric diverge. Conservatives are good at positive sum rhetoric, but are wedded to zero sum policies. Progressives are poor at positive sum rhetoric, but their policies are almost always positive sum.
 
Are you saying that the progressive/socialist left doesn't present a zero sum game approach?

Marxism most certainly does not propose that "only conflict is real, and it is ubiquitous". It specifically discusses class conflict, and proposes means of ending it, which include the members of the lower classes, by far the most numerous, working together to achieve it.

The "everything is conflict" was indeed the political postmodernism school of thought, inimical to marxism, wanting to extinguish it while attempting to claim its legacy. Think Foucault and his biopolitics for one example. The 1970s were dark years in the field of ideas, it is no accident that things started going downhill at that time.


On the term progressive currently used in politics. Or more accurately, reused. It is an unfortunate label precisely because people must be capable of recognizing when they set into a dead end and need to back out of it. Real overall progress requires the flexibility of mind to recognize mistakes and go back to previous positions and then search for new paths.
 
And here you have an example of the kind of rhetoric that a Post Modernist is especially critical of, alongside whatever idiocy the conservative column writer wrote: the need to define an enemy in simple terms and demand action/compliance in service of the meta narrative. Class conflict, in case of orthodox marxism. Continuation of status quo, for the conservatives.

Post modern theory suggest that it is possible to create a narrative that leads to progress without construction of a central metanarrative: through subversion, horizontal structuralism, interconnection, and deliberate choice to stay silent and provide a stage for the previously marginalized voices to be heard. I have personal doubts on whether such a thing can be accomplished but I hate to see inaccurate misinformation being spread about an entire school of thought without challenge.
 
I'd have thought that prospective 2024 candidates would want to vote to convict Trump, because then they could also bar him from future office and leave the field open for them.
 
Well the conservative movement in United States have been basically hollowed out as a zombified shell that provides cover to whatever populist menace that wants to control our government these days so I doubt most of them have the individual initiative necessary to make such a political move.

besides, what even is left for the Republican Party if it renounces the populist fascism at this point?
 
I'd have thought that prospective 2024 candidates would want to vote to convict Trump, because then they could also bar him from future office and leave the field open for them.

They want him convicted/barred, but they also don't want to piss off all the Trumpists whose votes they're competing for. Quite the conundrum.
 
Postmodernists say, with Nietzsche, that there are no facts, only interpretations — alternative “narratives” about reality. As Andrew Sullivan writes at Substack, to be “woke” is to be awake to this: All claims of disinterestedness, objectivity and universality are bogus. So, reasoning is specious, and attempts at persuasion are pointless. Hence, society is an arena of willfulness where all disagreements are power struggles among identity groups. The concept of the individual disappears as identity becomes fluid, deriving from group membership. Silence is violence; what is spoken is mandatory and must accord with the mentality of the listeners. Welcome to campus.

Claims of disinterestedness and objectivity are if not bogus at least worthy of examination.
Its very hard to disregard all bias and be truly objective, if not impossible.
That doesn't mean facts and reasoning are worthless, but most of us are selective in the facts we emphasize, we focus on the ones that support our prejudices and ignore or minimize those that don't.
Those convinced of their objectivity aren't inclined to listen to their opponents and reexamine their conclusions.
 
That is one insight of post modernist thought—criticism of supposed objectivity. Although you are correct it builds upon insight gained by modernist thinkers like Nietzsche and Marx. In the end, both were reacting to a similar malaise after all. The downfall of Enlightenment era’s promises for Nietzsche and Marx, and the Cold War’s dogmatism and fear for the post modernists.

What is objectivity? What is neutrality? What is universality? Who decided some things are objective, and who decided that something is a baseline experience that all human beings should share? Why do we believe in this?

Post Modernists point out that there are rarely an objectively good or objectively worse options outside of thought experiments. Should you, Individual X, choose to work to further a cause you believe is just, becoming a small part of a collective that can make a true difference in the world at large? Or should you instead focus upon making a significant, personal, improvement in the lives of people close to you that you love?

Post modern theory asserts that both are valid options, no less good or worse than the other. Without a central metanarrative to impose values judgment upon the individual, only the individual can choose which of the two choices is the more worthy endeavor, as long as they are prepared to live with the choice.
 
I wouldn't say that Nietzsche was of the view that there are no facts, just interpretations. He did, after all, try to come up with a theory of how high civilization is reached. Also, he relied on a tonne-load of stuff he regarded as inherently valuable - the easiest example there would be his view about biological urges, which he identified as positive.
Nietzsche isn't really a good example anyway (though possibly better than Marx, who was no real philosopher), since he had very prominent issues with what he refers to constantly as "german idealism", and which he tends to tie to religion. When you have a very stable thing you hate, you don't need much in the way of stable things you like.

As for the idea that "there are no facts, just interpretations" is modernist: Then Protagoras is modernist, despite having lived in the 5th century BC. After all: "Man is the meter of all things".
Then again I think the statement that nothing is objective is itself misleading. An easy way to notice it is by asking if the statement itself is objectively true. If nothing is objectively true, then neither is this slogan.
 
As for the idea that "there are no facts, just interpretations" is modernist: Then Protagoras is modernist, despite having lived in the 5th century BC. After all: "Man is the meter of all things".
Student: If that is true, sir, then what is the smallest thing that couldn't kill you?
Protagoras: A bit of cleaning up around here, according to Mrs Protagoras.
 
Modernist thinkers are largely an attempt at trying to rebuild high civilization after the failure of the Enlightenment. Marx had his in the form of Communist Revolution. Nietzsche had his own in the form of the ubermensch. In that way, they are decidedly not 'there are no facts, just interpretations.' But rather, a reaction to such nihilistic thought.

They are both an attempt at trying to rebuild a good, rational, and meaningful worlds at a moment wherein progress under the old Enlightenment values only appeared to further nihilistic greed, meaningless conflict, and heartless exploitation. Their solution to this was to create a new metanarrative that they felt would explain and contextualize... everything, really. With a new meta-narrative, the lure of political and philosophical nihilism can be resisted, and a truly good and just society rebuilt by the truly worthy.

Not even every post modernists ascribe to "there are no facts, just interpretations," as post modernists are not nihilists for the most part.

Most forms of post modernism would be described as thus: "There are facts, but many different interpretations of these facts, none of which are true/false."
 
Student: If that is true, sir, then what is the smallest thing that couldn't kill you?
Protagoras: A bit of cleaning up around here, according to Mrs Protagoras.

The full quote is usually translated to English as: "Man is the meter of all things; and of those that exist that they exist, of those that do not exist that they do not exist".
It can be interpreted in many ways, certainly. As Nietzsche once noted: "We all see ourselves in what we like", so I personally think Protagoras was referring to human notions being anthropic and thus neither in touch with the reality of something external nor with the reality beyond consciousness ^_^

@Seon I think that, re the view that everything is objective, one can hold it to a significant degree without turning nihilist. After all, we sort of know next to nothing about human thought either, just the absolute surface of things.
Although knowing you don't know (after some level), isn't very inviting, unless one is young. And to ask Socrates to comment is "like inviting enemy cavalry on flat terrain" :)
And to finish off with Nietzsche, once again: Aristotle had claimed that only gods and animals can live perfectly alone. To which Nietzsche added: also philosophers.
 
Last edited:
The full quote is usually translated to English as: "Man is the meter of all things; of those that exist that they exist, of those that do not exist that they do not exist".
It can be interpreted in many ways, certainly. As Nietzsche once noted: "We all see ourselves in what we like", so I personally think Protagoras was referring to human notions being anthropic and this neither in touch with the reality of something external nor with the reality beyond consciousness ^_^
That kind of argument might have worked on a Greek mother, but a Lithuanian mother would have that "no pudding for you look" halfway through.
 
About 20 years ago when our family played a MUD, I mentioned that South Australians are known as "The Crow Eaters".
For some reason orcs, dragons, half-elves, dwarves and all the other types of American players were outraged by the term.
I came this close >< to being cancelled. :)
 
Top Bottom