/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19608831]

>Truth exists
Why does this make modernists shit their pants?
When did this start in the literature?

[Anonymous No.19608847]

>>19608831
like 2400 years ago

[Anonymous No.19608873]

DELETE YOUR THREAD I DON"T LIKE IT

[Anonymous No.19608881]

>>19608831
>Why does this make modernists shit their pants?
The Outlines of Skepticism

[Anonymous No.19608928]

>>19608831
It's funny that in my native language (Polish) the word "apodictic" is synonymous with the word "domineering" and "overbearing". Main reason is the inherently collective and objective nature of truth which punches you in the face and forces you to accept it, repent before it and change your ways accordingly. Rebellion against the truth is the natural corollary of rebellion agaisnt God and indeed for many centuries the two were held to be virtually identical.

[Anonymous No.19609099]

>truth exists
Which?

[Anonymous No.19609113]

>>19609099
truth exists

[Anonymous No.19609114]

>>19608831
Truth is an epistemological framework.
The whole of reality doesn't recognize "truth/false" objects. They only recognize objects or existence and the universality or degree of their existence. Truth is just a way we cope w it rather than accepting darkness is the absence of light and more photons = more light.

[Anonymous No.19609133]

>>19609114
It exists = it is true that it exists.

[Anonymous No.19609136]

>>19608831
You mean postmodernists?

[Anonymous No.19609152]

>>19609133
Yes but existence can account for truth while truth can't account for existence (e.g. it is true a non-magical unicorn could exist yet it hasn't re/mutated). In any sense it's deprecated by existence.

[Anonymous No.19609156]

>>19609136
Pomo says narratives are made by individuals while modernists says narratives are made by the state. Pomo tries to push away from modernism by demonizing the state narratives in fiction etc which is where foucault is w his power/individualist historicism.

[Anonymous No.19609184]

>>19609133
>>19609152
For existence you can say a non-magical unicorn exists either in his neurons or existential existence or you can say it exists sociologically (can be recognized by 2 or more ppl).

[Anonymous No.19609190]

>>19608928
good post

[Anonymous No.19609201]

>>19609113
Which?

[Anonymous No.19609209]

>>19609152
>>19609184
But it doesn't exist materially or universally (like math, logic, ontology etc).
Anyways that's foundationalism, ik coherentist/infinitists have circles/lines thst they try to describe how reality works but I haven't seen a real justification for any of those in an ontological framework (just epistemological sometimes like hegel).

[Anonymous No.19609379]

>>19609133
Also a bit of a theory I'm working on in physics formulas but the fact that you had to add "it's true that" implies that it is redundant.
The physics analogy would be the mass formula where mass = density * volume.
Volume is math and obviously physics imports math so a better way to write it is where mass is just an order of volume. In a symmetrical equation it would get rid of density (as density is literally just mass/volume even in units) but in a hierarchical way like maybe set theory you could write it more accurately.

So w the truth example it would be saying existence = existence/truth or something to that effect which is definitionally less than existence.

[Anonymous No.19609402]

>>19609209
People don’t adopt coherentism because they find it convincing, they adopt it because they find foundationalism worse (axiom choice seems to be entirely arbitrary). At least coherentism yields, well, coherent sets of beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19609612]

>>19608831
Prove it

[Anonymous No.19609613]

>>19609402
The axiom of choice is limited by what it can predict.
Coherentism has issues particularly in trying to complete the circle or manage to show a proper relation, if not causation, of all parts back to each other. Now nothing I've seen that was large enough manages it.

[Anonymous No.19609633]

>>19609133
Existence is not a predicate

[Anonymous No.19609634]

>>19609627
Why not?

[Anonymous No.19609698]

Conor Oberst said it best when he sang “If there is no truth, how-come you say it like you’re right?” or something like that it’s been about 15 years

[Anonymous No.19609721]

>>19608831
It boggles my mind that subjectivism, something which could be disproven by a child in a single sentence, is still taken seriously. Just goes to show how our postmodern """""""intellectuals”””””” are really just retarded faggot scum jerking themselves off as the cutting edge of an intellectually and spiritually bankrupt society. “The intellectuals think themselves the brains of the nation, when really they are its shit.”-Lenin

[Anonymous No.19609722]

>>19608831
>hasn't even read the greeks

[Anonymous No.19609728]

>>19609721
>>19609698
Well the answer is they probably are saying something. "Truth/falsity" isn't a framework that maps existence well.

[Anonymous No.19609732]

>>19609721
lol dumbest post in this dumb thread. Imagine thinking opinions aren't real.

[Anonymous No.19609748]

>>19609698
He is a drug addict racist who doesn't know what hes talking about

[Anonymous No.19609762]

>>19608831
When you say there is objective truth you hurt many feelings. Don't you see?

The only solution is less welfare payments.

[Anonymous No.19609763]

>>19609201
2+2=4

[Anonymous No.19609769]

>>19609763
You're at best implying a mathematical model which can deduce that exists.

[Anonymous No.19609903]

>truth exists
Sure!
>obey truth
No thanks!

[Anonymous No.19609950]

>>19609156
This is sweeping and vague enough that I'm going to say you're wrong, at least in the sense of modernism/post-modernism as artistic movements.
Modernists were all very much about pursuing your own personal truth, forging your own values. Post-modernists generally insist that finding said truth is at best prohibitively difficult or at worst completely impossible if you're honest with yourself.
Take Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - very clearly modernist, very clearly about Stephen rejecting the truths given to him by others in favor of his own. Postmodern literature, on the other hand, tends towards massive irreconcilable conflicts whose protagonists can't even understand them fully, let alone solve.
The big modernist names, with the very-debatable exception of Pound and maybe a few Italians, were not at all into "dude just listen to what the state tells you lmao."

[Anonymous No.19609965]

>>19609099
>>19609201

[Anonymous No.19609980]

>>19609950
I think a more accurate way to say it is it's truth comes from the will of the people but is expressed in the individual like rousseau insofar as they're part of the people. Ig you could say the 19th-mid 20th century were rousseauian but modernism was a particular trend in reaction to the fall of the church's narrative in culture. This would explain the bolshevism, naziism, fascism etc.

[Anonymous No.19609984]

>>19609748

Racist? Conor is a cuck leftist who is constantly jerking off niggers. Drug addict I concede however.

[Anonymous No.19609987]

>>19609950
>The big modernist names, with the very-debatable exception of Pound and maybe a few Italians
That's only partially true. Modernism wasn't inherently anti-state but rather anti-bourgeois, and many of modernist artists ended up supporting totalitarian states. Not just Pound and Italian futurists, but also Hamsun, Russian cubofuturists, Hemingway (some even accuse him of espionage in the USSR's favour), Shaw, Celine etc.

[Anonymous No.19609988]

>>19608873
The fucking jannies will tbqh

[Anonymous No.19610054]

>>19609987
I definitely think ww1/2 were both modernist wars. The ridden view of "objective truth/justice" was taken from christianity entirely in a cultural sense. Prots couldn't blame the church for the seeming heresy of evolution so the next stage was a cultural hegemony instantiated by the will of the ppl allowing intersubjective value be more important.

[Anonymous No.19610131]

>>19608831
Truth only exists as imagination.

>>19609763
Numbers only exist as imagination.

[Anonymous No.19610137]

I found this book enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.19610150]

if truth exists then what is the prime mover?

[Anonymous No.19610157]

>>19608831
It implies that:
1. Evil exist.
2. Good exists.
2a. A perfect, good, judge of what is good, and what is evil, exists.
3. Final judgment exists.

[Anonymous No.19610163]

>>19608831

They are weak and cannot fix it so they must find a way to refuse it.

[Anonymous No.19610180]

>>19608831
>>Truth exists
it literally doesn't lmao

[Anonymous No.19610208]

Pagans - "Truth is found in nature and the will of the Gods."

Socratics - "A higher Truth guides nature and the Gods in the direction of the Good."

Christianity - "Our senses and reason alone cannot determine what is True, only revelation."

Catholicism - "But maybe some philosophy of the past can indicate the nature of Truth in a fallen world."

Protestantism - "Since we are in a fallen world, we can't rely on nature or the pope, Biblical revelation alone is certainly True."

Enlightenment - "Our understanding of the universe is removing the room for a God in it. Let's use history and reason to find Truth for society as well."

Nietzsche - "Truth is an abyss, let's ignore it and do what we want."

Modernism - "We can make our own Truth."

Post-Modernists - "We're fucked."

[Anonymous No.19610222]

If truth exists and things are made from a prime mover that is true, then how is it that anything false is ever made? Are you saying the rational combination of true things can be false? Are you saying that rationality can make irrational things?
IF that is what you are saying then truth is not true or your rationality isn't rational or rationality isn't true or truth is not rational.

If your rationality is not rational, or truth makes falsehoods, then truth cannot exist except for what it is true for.

That would mean that truth can't even be used to determine if something is true.
It should be impossible to use a true prime mover with a true rationality to combine true things and combine the true things the true things make to ever make anything that isn't true. So then how is anything false or wrong?

Sounds to me like truth is only used by bullshitters that want me to do something I don't want to for their gain not mine.
That sounds like religion to me. The same religion that wants me to believe in a prime mover.

Oh, wait! now we are getting somewhere....

[Anonymous No.19610223]

>>19608831
The truth of other the mind would be an absolutely disagreeable overbearing experience, so humanity has evolved to tune it out: in other words, humanity cannot bear too much truth of other minds.

[Anonymous No.19610231]

>>19610208
So looking at the chain of philosophy this way, I would hold the Nietzschean view of viewing Truth as a transcendent element above nature the beginning of today's problems. But instead of grounding Truth back into nature, we doubled down on sophistry, labeling Truth as subjective and created around the self. If the Nazis would have won World War II, we would have seen evolution on Adolf Hitler's Naturalism, which despite its flaws puts the external and real first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.19610232]

>>19610208
Post-Modernists - "You got a source for that? Truth isn't real, and that's a fact! I am French and very smart. *takes HRT*"

[Anonymous No.19610258]

>>19610231
>So looking at the chain of philosophy this way, I would hold the Nietzschean view of viewing Truth as a transcendent element above nature the beginning of today's problems
All these problems started precisely because different factions of people defend what they think is true until they're blue in the face. And Nietzsche said truth doesn't matter, because the value people subscribe to it is purely imaginary.

[Anonymous No.19610266]

>>19610258
>Nietzsche said truth doesn't matter
That's what people commonly regurgitate about him, but he was really just addressing his Overman and Good Europeans.

[Anonymous No.19610271]

>>19610266
>>Nietzsche said truth doesn't matter
He really did in BGaE. And it really doesn't.

[Anonymous No.19610280]

>>19610271
To a specific readership though. He'd find professors teaching his books at modern universities appalling.

[Anonymous No.19610299]

>>19610280
Probably, but he influenced virtually every continental philosopher who came after him so not teaching Nietzsche would equal discarding a hundred years worth of thought at an educational level