Doremefasolatido wrote:
Thread, do you agree with the postmodern, deconstructionist view of the world, or does such moral relativism not appeal to you?
Thread wrote:
::toying furiously with control pad:: Collect the damn rings, you stupid Fox! You're not helping!
Tails a.k.a Miles Prower, Sonic's Stupid 2-Tailed Friend From The Damn Videogames wrote:
"Not helping", in and of itself, isn't instruction enough to a clear course of action... in the simplest proof-via-contradiction available, consider two people, A and B, who are at cross-purposes. A can insist B isn't helping A at all, but for B to help A, B has to act entirely against his or her own self-interests, an action non-helpful to B, of course.
This is mentioned solely as an example as to how a frame of reference is vital to a clearer understanding of issues and required actions at hand, because of course not everyone is at cross-purposes to each other. Neither then is everyone for each other's goals [as we are here, for every ring I collect, both you and I are rewarded, and equally at that], and it would be tedious to go through and list every other possible combination of self-interest versus interests of the exterior and how they can be combined. It is enough to leave it at some aphorism "One man's wine is another man's poison" and begin the actual discussion at hand. Hopefully when I define certain of the terms in the question with reference to the Needle & Thread framework, a few things might come to light. If not, well, we can always try to bonus stage.
To begin with, what is Postmodernism? In a few words, the period of thinking and art that followed Modernism. And what of Modernism? The period of thought and art to follow Victorianism. Here then, we can start. The Victorian era was full of stuffy ideals, how a man should act, how a woman, what art should look like and how it should be done. Admittedly the era itself had enough underground rebels that mocked the institutions while conforming to the required art standards [Dickens, Austen, etc] .. but for the Modernist crowd, they didn't find the "code of conduct" for humans in and of themselves was the fetters that held them back from creative endeavours and self-expressionism, the Modernists felt the strict conformity to art forms was what stifled their expressionist desires, and so they created art in non-normal forms [Joyce, Pound, Eliot, Kafka, cummings and so on]. All well and good, the mould has been broken and Art has earnt the right to be simply Art.
What now then? How could Postmodernism arise to rebel from this perfect and formless art? Some subscribe to the school of thought that with Modernism came the insular conformity that they'd tried so desperately to rebel against - all of a sudden instead of all poems sitting in neat little rows and rhyming, all the poems now are haphazardly arranged and look like someone's written down every third word from the back of a bus-ticket or cereal box. I think this applies too much thought to the motivations of the time: writers weren't sitting around angstily saying that art's total lack of form [as a matter of form] was making it difficult for them, the writers were just whiny and petulant little smarmy passive-aggressives who wanted a unique identity for themselves without having to fight for it or even need it. I mean, art went from being orderly to being disorderly. If an attempt was made to impose a newer, more socially relevant order on it to fit in with society's needs, then sure, Postmodernism could have been a relevant art cause. Instead it was the Emperor 's New Clothes - no change was made to the rules of art ["There are no rules.. still"] and the thos was "Well, the world's chaotic, us doing nothing to alter art's chaotic laws of art is indicative of the underlying chaos". Indicative of the underlying laziness of the artists more likely, but I digress.
Deconstructionalism is, in light of the above statement, as shallow and perverse a pursuit. Let's ignore the foolish semantics [destroying things as an art form, hmmm..] and just get to the meat of the matter: people like that Derrida fellow earn a paycheck by getting up on stage and stating the obvious to other smarmy fools who think they're just as clever as he is because they agree entirely with everything he says. Again the Groupthink mentality, the we're-oh=so-very-clever club of distinguished gentlemen, the cult. The bones of deconstructualism lie in
i) not knowing precisely what the author means
ii) acknowledging there's no universal truth
iii) The context of an article depends on how the reader reads it - or rather, just what the reader reads into it.
In as few words as possible, deconstructism is a big card that says NOTHING IS FOR CERTAIN on it. Even if we acknowledge some ignorant people would consider some things, no matter what, 100% certain [as a matter of opinion, of course. Given nothing's certain, we can't be sure they're not right...] it still wouldn't make any of us more enlightened or spry of step to smirk self-righteously and say "You can't be sure". It's like people who say "We have no proof the Universe actually exists, this could all be a dream" .. well sure, but how does that affect our daily lives? Can you change it? GET A JOB. Unfortunately this philosophy only becomes more and more widespread when a viewer of "The Matrix" *realises* that hey.. what IF we really WERE in the Matrix? This really COULD be a dream, er, I mean, simulation. I mean, seriously. If you want to act as though this is meaningful outlook on life that way, at least learn what "solipsism" is first.. that way you might at least get a few more points while playing Scrabble along your deconstructionalist life-span.
So then, we come to moral relavism. A little ironically I started out by stating everything's subjective before insulting and decrying the people in society who pursue the notion of everything being subjective [though admittedly I only did this because they consider "everything being subjective" is an actual answer in and of itself, a means to an end. It's not, it's just a handy hint for getting by in life.. a guide to learning and looking] .. it would noly be right now that I return to relavism. Morals have ALWAYS been relative, this is what morals by definition are. I'm sure we could have a discussion of ethics versus morals and how if morals are subjective then how can laws be based on morals, but when push comes to shove, the laws represent the majority of the people's wishes [in a democracy anyway] and the morals upon which the laws are based also represent the majority of the people's wishes. I mean, mp3s and Napster and all that: sure it's illegal and there's the lawsuits and so forth, but seriously, a LOT of people don't have a morality problem with taking said mp3s [perhaps because they've been raised to expect music for free, you know, like when you listen to the radio] but if they got the numbers together and rallied and got the voting swing, they could VOTE to make a law state "stealing is wrong, and mp3s are free and can not ever be stolen, etc" based upon their lax morality on the point. Of course, due to the very public lawsuits and so forth from the RIAA not so many people are putting their hands up in public and admitting they're mp3 pirates [Arr!] to start to ball in motion for the public voting, but in theory we can see how groups ascribe to a certain morality. Saying morals are relative isn't particularly incisive in and of itself [it's like saying water is wet, in my humble opinion] but the interesting thing is such a matter doesn't even really apply to Needle and Thread's world, anyway.
Consider the typical storyline format: Needle and Thread are told by someone what to do or placed in a difficult situation and then they cope the best they can with what has happened. Not so much free-will and certainly little choice. Morality is only an issue when it comes to decisions, and Needle and Thread don't get to make them. Having observed this, however, I'd have to state Thread is of the moral relativism school, but only as if he had to be of ONE school of thought, because there's no way in Hell he could be persuaded to dress like a Postmodernist Deconstructionalist. Moral relativism it is. That suit you, Thread?
Thread wrote:
Yeah, but just make sure you collect all the rings next time.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I feel evil.