Could he have been any more full of shit? He literally ignores Chemistry, Astronomy, engineering, physics, entirely because it's inconvenient for his narratives. Instead he picks on "madness" (not even psychiatry, his narrative ends in the middle of the bloody 18th century!), and the prison systems as two big concrete examples of socially constructed knowledge.

He initially scoffed at HIV/AIDS, but then only reluctantly accepted it as he lay dying.

Just because somebody is remembered by history doesn't mean they had anything important to say

> be a faggot
> visit Iran after the islamic revolution, singing praises as they hang homos from lamposts

>>17822870
/thread

Postmodernism is a terminal mental illness.
This post was made by modernist gang

he did this because psychiatry and psychoanalysis were particularly relevant institutions to critique at the time. see feyerabend and latour

>He initially scoffed at HIV/AIDS, but then only reluctantly accepted it as he lay dying.
many do the same with covid, and i dont think its because they dont believe diseases are real

>>17823064
t. quad jabbed

>>17823043
Postmodernism is logically consistent modernism

>>17822866 (OP)
>>17823075
Postmodernism is modernism for paedophiles. There is literally not one postmodernist who didn't liddle kids.

>>17823075
Modernism places epistemology first, we look at our observations and ascertain a conclusion. Postmodernism says your feelings and subjective opinion is more important (you feel like a woman ergo you are one). Modernism makes no sich mistake. The evidence (xx chromosomes) come for the conclusion, reality doesn"t have to conform to your feelings.

>>17823068
t. illiterate shitskin

>>17822866 (OP)
>He initially scoffed at HIV/AIDS, but then only reluctantly accepted it as he lay dying.
A lot of people tried to pretend that a global plague was a non-issue, yes.
It keeps happening.

>>17823082
Yeah that's consistent. A modernistic worldview has no basis for laws of logic, nature, or intelligible and reliable sense-experience. Only the ancient faith of Christ can consistently provide those.

>>17823075
It's incoherent schizo babble by humanities profs who have huge egos and think they know everything despite frequently showing massive ignorance of knowledge about many fields.

2. It's heavily inspired by Nietzsche, who himself has huge gaps in his knowledge (not grasping the philosophy of science or anything David Hume wrote on the subject for one, not getting political theory or international relations, or economics).

3. Then it's also in reaction to structuralism, which is why they call it post-structuralism. "Post-modernism" is just a framing of how to cateogorize these post-structuralist atuhors.

4. Their ideas are insanely and extremely historically contingent on a whole host of events (French embrace Nietzsche after USSR's blunders, structuralism's rise, social injustice still being an issue, ex-marxists wanting to reinvent the revolutionary wheel", etc). The critique is that "modernism" is in fact just the whims and beliefs of elite males from Europe, and doesn't represent a universal viewpoint that can be applied to all cultures and sitautions.

But what the hell do you call this? Their shit is even more historically contingent than what they're criticizing.

5. The original wave like Foucault just outright ignored entire fields inconvenient to their narratives (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc) and instead went after softer targets. Ignoring thins inconvenient to their narratives is common with this type. But then any scholarship built upon this is extremely flawed to say the least, and then later thinkers start to tackle hard science fields and come off as idiots. Oh yeah, maybe quantum mechanics is because of the instability of the Weimar republic? Maybe natural selection is due to the aristocratic and capitalist views of elite british upper class, etc.

>>17823095
Premodernist mystics cut their cocks off to impress their invisible friend too, it is no different from postmodernist trannies

>>17823095
>Yeah that's consistent. A modernistic worldview has no basis for laws of logic, nature, or intelligible and reliable sense-experience.

Oh look something David Hume talked about. Post-modernist thinking frames itself as cutting edge, but it's often decades if not centuries behind other fields.

The goal of science, liberalism, economics, political science, etc isn't to create some spooky mystical ultimate truth given to us on golden tablets by the angel Maroni, but instead practical information that we can act upon and build upon, which is always evolution, always becoming more accurate, and then not quite perfectly matching up to reality.

>Only the ancient faith of Christ can consistently provide those.

...and how do you know THAT?

>>17823095
>Christ can consistently provide those.
How does it do that?

>>17823099
>The original wave like Foucault just outright ignored entire fields inconvenient to their narratives (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc) and instead went after softer targets. Ignoring thins inconvenient to their narratives is common with this type.
Isn’t this a virtue rather than a vice? Psychiatry is obviously more vulnerable to postmodernist attack and also more directly involved in the subjugation of human beings

>>17823100
Meds
>>17823109
>...and how do you know THAT?
How do I know what?
>>17823110
Because God exists and we are made in His image.

>>17823124
Presumably you came to know this by using you (unreliable) sense-experience

>>17823129
Sense-experience is reliable because I'm made in the image of God.

>>17823132
How did you come to learn you're made in the image of God?

>>17823124
>who is abraham

>>17823117
if anything foucault would have acted in a way inconsistent with his position if he wasted his time critiquing actually useful shit like the hard sciences. at any rate, foucault was NEVER an anti-realist. his describes his method as a bracketing of scientific facts in the same vein as husserl. this is like saying husserl didnt believe in an external world just because phenomenology focuses on studying consciousness

>>17823110
It's just binary reasoning, and wanting to "solve" that. Human knowledge is always going to be incomplete, and there's always a chance we don't know something that throws a monkey wrench into things. Therefore, science can't explain natural laws (even though science is what discovered them to begin with), and thus science is useless. Thus we need to fix this since we can obviously see natural laws (Through our day to day lives and scientific investigations). Thus we pre-suppose a god figure behind it all.

It's very standard Christian thinnking, and often pairs with theocratic views, since they also think morality can't exist without god (for similar reasons), and thus we need to replace the state with god.

So basically God replaces science and the state and probably education as well. .

>>17823117
>Isn’t this a virtue rather than a vice? Psychiatry is obviously more vulnerable to postmodernist attack and also more directly involved in the subjugation of human beings

He and Deluzue and others made grand bold pronouncements like knowledge is socially constructed, then talked about these low hanging fruits like the treatment of the mentally ill in the freaking medieval and early modern period, the evolution of prisons, the history of sexuality, etc. So there's the miss-match. They talk a big game, and naive people take them at their word as having 'proved' this big game, but their examples are rather small scale.

Can knowledge be socially generated? Yeah! Of course. Everyone already knew that. But bold pronouncements over it being always true is complete hogwash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge

That being said, actually a simple glance at the reception to his work in his lifetime, shows that actual historians were poking holes in his work showing sloppy scholarship. But a great deal of work was then built upon Foucault's works as if they were genius infallible works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

>>17823173
And probably the crux and most important point:
Ultimately he and others were claiming that everything else is super biased, however, they're 100x more biased than any of the shit that they were criticizing. Foucault just assumes that there's a conspiracy of elites at all times, regardless of whether he has evidence of this. Thus he's just justifying his own paranoid and cynical worldview that he came to rather than proving any kind of case.

>>17823173
he wasnt just trying to be bold because he felt like it. the french were all very much concerned about the political relevance of their philosophies. they aren't trying to defend positions detached from the rest of the world. like i said here too >>17823157
it is a misconception to interpret foucault as an anti-realist. analyzing social institutions behind science does not necessarily mean that you are trying to discount all of science. also while deleuze was a constructivist in some sense, he more worked with metaphysics than history

also ive got a better text that looks at the hard sciences too. see andrew pickering's 'constructing quarks'. it should be noted that pickering is not trying to say that particle theory is fake. serious thinking isn't so simple and one-dimensional

lastly id like to point out that foucault actually said outright at some point that he isnt a philosopher. hes a sociologist. hes studying social systems rather than trying hard to push some transcendent system

>>17823173
>>17823188
Those are some fair points anon. Thanks for that.

>>17823214
>analyzing social institutions behind science does not necessarily mean that you are trying to discount all of science.

But he never gives any positive examples, it's always negative, always skepticism, always cynicism. There's that lack of nuance. However, once you add nuance: what do you get? That some information can be culturally biased? That sometimes power can influence things? He isn't saying anything particularly ground breaking.

>like i said here too >>17823157
it is a misconception to interpret foucault as an anti-realist.

The most charitable reading between the lines: is that he and others think that the story given to us by historians, scientists, etc and cultural and political institutions are fundamentally biased, and its our job as sociologists to root through the lies, and then presumably build something new and positive (which they never did, it was just more negativity, skepticism, and deconstruction). Queer theory is entirely negative, holding no positive theory about sexuality and in fact rejecting that its even possible.

But science and scholarship are the two best tools we have, and there's literally nothing better. The answer to poor scholarship is to make better scholarship.

if you deny the tools to analyze the world, you make ultimate reality this closed off world outside ourselves that we can never access. Functionally that's very close to anti-realism. There is a real world, but our systems are so biased that we can never access them.

>>17823240
And here we can see two things at play.

1. Foucault is a humanities prof, who conveniently decided that humanity profs are the smartest most informed people in the world who have this secret decoder ring to society no one else has. Isn't this just a tiny bit self-serving and egoistical?

2. He was a homo. He had a beef with commies because they were anti-homo. He just so happens to have a beef with science and psychiatry. I'm pretty sure his entire worldview is just him raging at the world and being very insecure that most institutions dislike homosexuality.

>>17823135
God revealed it.

>>17823242
what the fuck are you even saying

>>17823262
To your unreliable senses?

>>17823311
Again, my senses are not unreliable, and no (the knowledge of God belongs to general revelation; we know God before we know the bible)

>>17823319
I don't understand, do you have some kind on extrasensory superpower that you came to know this stuff with?

>>17823268
>what the fuck are you even saying

Post-structuralists and their followers can be thought of humanities supremacists. Think about it. To get to the reality of the world you don't do experiments, you write deconstrucitvist essays. Science is a tainted tool of power that can never be trusted. Find me oppression, and you'll find a scientist behind it.

They fail to see how insanely self-serving this is, as it puts humanities profs as not experts in their field, but literally the smartest people ever. If a feminist writes an essay on a tv show, she's not just analyzing some pop culture bullshit, but instead unlocking the secret conspiracy that binds us all, and thus is at the forefront of the revolution to save the world.

It's all insanely self-serving hogwash. It's professors with delusions of grandeur.

Secondly, they critique science as biased, but they're insanely more biased. Foucault had an axe to grind against psychiatry because it declared homosexuality a mental illness. Their ideas are insanely historically dated, but they keep moving forward like shambling zombies.

>>17823331
No, and that's not how you know it either.

>>17823384
>Find me oppression, and you'll find a scientist behind it.
True

>>17823384
>>17823268
I was first introduced to these fuckers in 06 when I took an English class elective, and the class was a foucault style assault on historical knowledge, saying it's all a social construction, that the past is inherently unknowable, and that each group makes up their own bullshit. I hated the prof, and I have hated these fuckers ever since. Again: profs with delusions of grandeur.

Is he an English professor of literature, or someone who knows more history than the historians, more science than the scientists, etc. At face value, he is part of a small elite who sees through the conspiracy, and thus tries to enlighten his students by explaining the meta-narratives that bind us all. Which is a meta-narrative, but whatever. Post-modernism is self-defeating hogwash.

>>17823399
Imagine being paid to teach anti intellectualism lmao

>>17823385
I don't understand. Are you using your senses to come to know those senses are reliable?

>>17823412
Yes, it's a form of left-wing anti-intellectualism and conspiracism, and they are just better at dressing it up. Same origins of absurd paranoia, and over confidence that they're right about everything, without accepting that experts might know something.

>>17823095
>Presuppositionalist retard enters the thread
You can get a grounding by literally just accepting a ground, thats the point of presuppositions. Stop getting your apologetics from morons like Jay Dyer.

>>17823418
Nearly every form of leftism is anti intellectual

>>17822866 (OP)
You attack him personally because you can't refute his ideas, CHUD

>>17823416
No. I know those senses are reliable because God exists.

>>17823095
>>17823429
They make a superficially correct statement and think it's a win. You can't base some spooky ultimate knowledge based on our experiences, but who said our goals was to create spooky mystical rules? They're effectively shocked that legal scholarship, historical scholarship, scientific investigation, etc doesn't operate like a religion, and then say it's inferior to religion.

It's just a rhetorical trap, they don't even believe in anything.

>>17823446
Some more than other. I consider the big liberal-enlightenment vs. leftism break to be grounded in frameworks and tone, with leftism being much more cynical, paranoid, and intellectually closed off. Marxism and socialists for instance, don't believe that you should or need to study mainstream political or economic theory, since it's just a bunch of lies, and only Marxist thinkers hold the real answers. That kind of hubris extends to the post-strucutralists, who apply that approach to everything. You can think of them as extending the conspiracy past politics and economics to all social structures.

And of course THEY and THEY alone have all the answers and have seen through the lies, so we should give them tons of attention and money so they can run society instead. it's such an obvious power grab.

Enlightenment thought is more optimistic, and positive, but we are seeing actually that they might have been a bit too naive. Obviously there needs to be a middle ground.

>>17823456
Right away noticing major gaps in his thinking, same with Nietzsche.

>>17823429
Sounds very arbitrary

>>17823459
Why do you believe calling things you don't like spooky or mystical is an argument?

>>17823460
All presuppositions are arbitrary by nature, including yours btw.

>>17823459
The real answer is that socialism and communism are failed branches of liberalism created by people trying to leap-frog and create a better ideology than liberalism

>>17823475
No, just the unbelieving ones

>>17823458
I don't understand how this doesn't just bottom out in your senses.
Like, how would you go about knowing that you're not in The Matrix right now? Walk me through it

>>17823493
Presuppositions are by definition not based on something else. Try actually learning how your apologetics works before using it.

>>17823500
That's not what arbitrary means though.
>>17823499
Man has implanted in his soul a sense of Deity which is not derived from his senses, that he may know God and his duties concerning him. So I know I'm not in the matrix because God made the world.

>>17823486
and the reason the left is anti intellectual are the same reasons socialism and communism failed to overtake liberalism, too many plot holes, too much mental gymnastics, a heavy reliance on conjecture based on incomplete or misunderstood information

>>17823520
>That's not what arbitrary means though.
Yes it is, presuppositions are by definition arbitrary. Again come back when you learn how your apologetics works instead of just mimicking your favourite youtuber.

>>17823529
OK

>>17823520
>I'm not in the matrix because God made the world
This is a claim. I am interested in the process of how you come to know it.

>>17823540
Your presupposition that god transmitted knowledge into you, and that you can trust this sense is an arbitrary presupposition by nature, it's not founded on a prior. If it's not founded on a prior it's arbitrary by nature.
If you're going to use presuppositionalist apologetics actually learn what a presupposition before thinking you're going to do a heckin epic own on the atheists like Gay Dyer

>>17823557
Asked and answered.

>>17823564
Is Jay Dyer in the room with us right now?

>>17823540
>>17823565
Please don't start shit if you're just gonna tap out
It's no fun to role-play with you, if you don't bother to learn the character you're playing.

>>17823568
Lets presuppose he is

>>17823569
OK

>>17823568
No, but seriously. Are we supposed to believe you read books?
Are you going to pretend this is something you invented yourself?

>>17823598
Yeah I read books. I've literally never watched anything Dyer has done and seething uncontrollably about this guy who lives rent free in your head isn't an argument.

>>17823606
>Yeah I read books.
Lady bird books don't count

>>17823606
Where did you pick up on the catchphrase "general revelation"?

>>17823464
>Why do you believe calling things you don't like spooky or mystical is an argument?

Because I'm only interested in practical useful information about the world that I can actually use. Any claims of some ultimate knowing is spooky and has to rely on some kind of mystical origin.

>The universe is created and it's etched into the universal fabric that red bananas are bad because they have a 15% higher chance of giving you cancer

or

>scientific studies have shown red bananas have a higher risk of cancer, so they sould be avoided.

One is grounded, the other mystical. One is cautious the other ultimate.

>>17823486
That's the simpler way of putting it. But these guys moved away from Marxism, and looped around and started to reject all the other elements of liberalism, including rationalism, humanism, and science not just liberal economics. The post-structuralists are defined by their anti-liberalism.

>>17823651
>Because I'm only interested in practical useful information about the world that I can actually use. Any claims of some ultimate knowing is spooky and has to rely on some kind of mystical origin.
Calm down schizo. You're pretty spooky. You can't claim any practical usable knowledge without ultimate knowledge. If you have no basis for knowledge and truth, then your practical knowledge and basedence is just your arbitrary preference. You're no different than the postmodernist, relying on your feelings.

>>17823606
OK, so not Jay Dyer. Sorry, I believe you.
You've yet to drone on about "the impossibility of the contrary".

Look, you're a 4chan E-Christian, and I believe I've talked to you before. You always tap out of the discussion before getting into the meat on the bone.
Makes me think you've only got cursory knowledge about what TAG is supposed to do, and lack the specialized knowledge to go deep on the topic. Makes me think what you know about this stuff, is from watching youtube videos.

You are using highly specialized language and terms, this is not stuff you make-up on your own. This is trained behavior, you've heard someone else talk this way.
Don't know why you are so cagey about who

There's really not that many options, Gary - Darth Dawkins-, you into him?
Or maybe you hang out on a Dyer-adjacent presup Discord channel.

>>17823710
>You always tap out
Nope, couldn't've been me
>Makes me think you've only got cursory knowledge about what TAG is supposed to do, and lack the specialized knowledge to go deep on the topic.
I feel very comfortable assuming you have no idea what you're talking about and your counter-arguments consist of memes, shitposts and emotions
>Gary - Darth Dawkins-, you into him?
What?
>Or maybe you hang out on a Dyer-adjacent presup Discord channel.
Is Jay Dyer in the room with us right now? What is he doing?

>>17823723
You protests too much
It IS Jay Dyer!

>>17823734
Rent free!

>>17823735
Lying is a sin
those demon dicks just got stiffer

>>17823737
I didn't ask about your homoerotic fantasies

>>17823723
I've been abused by Jay and kicked from his Discord, despite telling him I'dd keep the pictures off the net After that I've been a bit obsessed.
Can't you just please tell me where you learned about presup? TheThinkInstitute?

>>17823745
Nah

>>17823753
Please, I need to know where you learned about presup!

>>17823772
How embarrassing

>>17823787
Why can't you just tell me?

Here's how a helpful conversation would go: "No, I didn't not learn about presup from Jay Dyer. I learned about presup from _____ _____. "

>>17823787
It's very obviously a youtuber in the fact that you clearly don't understand what presuppositionalism actually is and have only used the meme version of it in this thread that the youtubers use.

>>17823808
Why don't you tell me what presuppositionalism really akshally is, clown. The fact you can't tell the difference between the argument and that term reinforces my confidence in your cluelessness. And, no, your delusional fantasy still has nothing to do with reality, I did not learn this on youtube.

>>17823825
Did you learn it on a Discord?

>>17823825
Already have multiple times in this thread. You don't understand what a presupposition is. The presuppositionalist argument is arbitrary by nature. The best you can do is argue the other persons presuppositions are as arbitrary as yours.

>>17823836
>You're right, I am totally clueless
I could tell, thank you. The answer, by the way, is Greg Bahnsen.

>>17823825
>>tell me what presuppositionalism really akshally
>Please make my argument for me

Still waiting for presuppers to figure that out. Presup is garbage.

>>17823840
Cope!

>>17823839
>Bahnsen
How come you use the meme version, though?
You seriously want us to believe you don't know who Darth Dawkins is

>>17823839
Presuppositionalists just circularly argue that they're right because they presupposed god has given them their knowledge. They cannot prove this, thus it is an arbitrary presupposition by nature. No amount of seething will change this.
Presuppositionalist logic only works against people who've never come across it before, and only because presuppositionalists aren't up front about what they're arguing when they use it.

>>17823842
Bahnsen and Van Til kinda neglected to provide justification for their premise
So I'm still waiting for presupers to do this

>>17823844
I literally don't know who that is and there is no "meme version", you're just clueless.
>>17823845
Why is circular argumentation not allowed?

>>17823845
Yes, it's sophistry. it's also based on binary logic where information is either valid or useless, whereas much of scholarship and science is fuzzy probabilities ranging from low to high confidence and occam's razor. This is how we've discovered like literally everything. Their kind of logic literally goes nowhere. you can't do anything with it.

I hate sophistry on the left and right and among religions. I just detest that kind of argument style.

>>17823848
>Why is circular argumentation not allowed?

>>17823848
It's quite literally not argumentation. It's just stating a premise

>>17823848
>Why is circular argumentation not allowed?
It's not that it's not allowed, it's that it's arbitrary. You claimed it wasn't arbitrary.

>>17823853
Why is that not allowed?

P1 God not real.
P2 p1 is true.

Why not circular argumentation allowed?

>>17823855
Yeah it's not arbitrary, it's also not circular. I'm getting to the point here that by claiming "wrong cause circular" you're borrowing my worldview, because the only way that could be an unacceptable method of generating belief is if there are objective standards of reasoning which a naturalist can't justify on his worldview.

>>17823858
What you mean not allowed? It's not like anyone is going to arrest you, if that's what you're asking
You can string any combination of letters together

>>17823861
You're getting pulled into the presuppositionalists trap.
Those axioms aren't invalid, the matter is whether you accept them or not. It is perfectly acceptable to reject internally consistent axioms however.

>>17823651
>these guys moved away from Marxism
No. The left still uses the same logical pitfalls of communism, that's why there not only stupid. But dangerous

>>17823864
>Yeah it's not arbitrary, it's also not circular
It is both, starting from the assumption that god exists is both arbitrary and circular, as there is no prior. You can claim that presupposition, but that doesn't make it less arbitrary outside of your presupposed axioms.

>>17823871
It's neither arbitrary nor circular because it is necessary and transcendental. That seems to be what you don't understand and that's the reality of what Christianity is. I am presupposing the existence of God, and so are you.

>>17823864
Also you're defaulting to your script even though your script isn't valid to what I said, I didn't say wrong because circular. But of course you have to default to the assumption I did because otherwise the script falls apart.

>>17823875
It is only necessary and transcendental within your presuppositions, which are arbitrary. Only if you presuppose it is necessary and transcendental is that case. But that presupposition is arbitrary.

>>17823876
Cope

>>17823880
I accept you concession.

>>17823878
Do you have an answer of how a naturalist can believe in laws of logic?

all deductively valid arguments are always question begging, btw - circular
you're not suddenly going to get a conclusion that wasn't baked into the premises

deductive arguments is not a way we come to learn new things
people should not be persuaded by them, they are performative

>>17823882
None was given

>>17823883
Irrelevant to whether your presuppositions are arbitrary. A naturalists presuppositions could also be arbitrary, but that wouldn't make your own any less arbitrary either.

>>17823864
>wrong cause circular
Did Bahnsen train you to talk this way? lmao
I still say you picked this up from youtube

>>17823889
It's implicit by you having to default to troll posting.

>>17823891
I will take that as a "no" then and point out that no, the fact you need to presuppose the existence of God to engage in this discussion is not arbitrary nor is it contingent on my presuppositions, in fact you're looking at it right now.
>>17823892
OK

>>17823900
You presuppose that you need to presuppose that god exists, but that is an arbitrary presupposition that is circular, and basically no more valid than the naturalist.
All you've done is basically removed yourself from a common ground on which to argue with anyone outside of your presuppositions.

>>17823906
>You presuppose that you need to presuppose that god exists
No I'm demonstrating it right now. This is not an argument.
>All you've done is basically removed yourself from a common ground
But we do have common ground. Even though your worldview would not enable it you do acknowledge and use laws of logic because you're made in the image of God. That's common ground.

>>17823908
>No I'm demonstrating it right now. This is not an argument.
You haven't demonstrated anything, you just presupposed it.
>But we do have common ground.
We don't as I reject your presupposition that god exists and everything derives from there, so we inherently have no founding premise to argue upon.

>>17823908
>No I'm demonstrating it right now
Lying is a sin.
Those demon cocks just got fatter

>>17823912
>You haven't demonstrated anything, you just presupposed it.
No sir, your inability to give a foundation for knowledge in naturalism is not in my head.
>We don't as I reject your presupposition that god exists and everything derives from there, so we inherently have no founding premise to argue upon.
It's not news to me that you're in rebellion against God. You're still made in His image and you know Him. That's common ground. We have it in common.

>>17823919
>No sir, your inability to give a foundation for knowledge in naturalism is not in my head.
You can presuppose a foundation for knowledge of naturalism without god. That's the point of presuppositions.
>You're still made in His image and you know Him.
You can presuppose that, but I reject that presupposition
You see the problem with presuppositionalist apologetics is the absolute best case you can get to it a stalemate because you flatly refuse to find a reasonable common ground with your opponent. So you're just stuck insisting god exists and the other person rejecting that presupposition, there's basically nowhere else for the argument to go as both people fundamentally start on different presuppositions. This is why Catholics were right to go with finding a common ground in natural logic to argue, while presuppositionalist apologetics is a complete dud.

>>17823919
This whole apologetics depends on asking this dumb question. Then just reject any answer provided. (you can always do this)


>give a foundation for knowledge
What does giving a "foundation of knowledge" look like? lmao
You kinda just say "God does it"

This seems super silly to me. You want me to provide you with a sentence in English language "nature just does it", would you accept something like that? Of course not!
Besides, I think the question itself is very confused, no such thing as a "foundation of knowledge".

>>17823922
>You can presuppose a foundation for knowledge of naturalism without god.
Then please, explain to me how a naturalist can believe in laws of logic.
>I reject that
I don't rightly care. Putting the words "you can presuppose" before everything is not an argument. You don't have to engage with me, but this refusal to do so is not an argument nor does it create a stalemate. It's just an argument from pigheadedness fallacy.
>the absolute best case you can get to it a stalemate
Nah I'll settle for victory.
>you flatly refuse to find a reasonable common ground with your opponent
It's the only common ground there is or could be.

>>17823929
>Then please, explain to me how a naturalist can believe in laws of logic.
I can presuppose they exist on their own accord
>Putting the words "you can presuppose" before everything is not an argument.
Correct it's a presupposition, retard
>Nah I'll settle for victory.
You can presuppose that, but only people who accept your presuppositions will agree, which is literally only people who already believe in god. Your argument is totally impotent at convincing anyone who isn't already a diehard calvinist as it requires the other people to start with the assumption god exists, which they can just reject as a presupposition and can do so completely validly.
>It's the only common ground there is or could be.
According to your presuppositions, which I have no reason to accept.

>>17823928
>Then just reject any answer provided
I'll only reject answers that don't work.
>What does giving a "foundation of knowledge" look like?
I have a worldview wherein knowledge is possible, because there are laws of logic, there's laws of nature, there's intelligible sense-experience etc etc. You don't.
>You want me to provide you with a sentence in English language "nature just does it", would you accept something like that?
No, the argument is about the coherence of worldviews. This is a strawman, we don't just declare "God does it", we have a worldview that is consistent with the preconditions of intelligibility and I am asking if you can have that same consistency as a naturalist. I say you can't.

>>17823934
God got a superpower to do anything. So he'll always work as an explanation for anything.
This is so lame... How is nature supposed to compete? Nature can't even do magic

>>17823933
>I can presuppose they exist on their own accord
Are they material?
>Correct it's a presupposition, retard
It's not that either. It's just embarrassing
>You can presuppose
I accept your concession.

>>17823935
Sounds like the Christian worldview is coherent and the naturalistic worldview is not.

>>17822959
Why do you think gats are all in one grand global coalition?

>>17823934
RIght, so we need to do more than provide a sentence in English language.
Can you please expand on your theory as to how God does any of this?

>>17823941
It's not a theory, it's what the bible teaches.

>>17823936
>Are they material?
You can have immaterial assumptions without assuming a personal god.
>It's not that either.
Everything you've said is a presupposition, there's no argument to be made as I reject your founding presupposition
>I accept your concession.
I concede nothing as I don't accept your presupposition god exists.

>>17823109
>it's often decades if not centuries behind other fields.
??? But it's not a field at all? How ESL are you?

>>17823943
>You can have immaterial
How can immaterial laws exist in a naturalistic universe?

>>17823937
I think you are using a highly idiosyncratic definition of coherence
What exactly do you mean by incoherent?

>>17823948
Immaterial things can be natural. You're getting materialism and naturalism conflated because you're obviously a pseud who doesn't understand anything outside of his script.

>>17823942
Look, if you're not gonna tell me how God does any of the stuff. It seems bigly hypocritical to ask me to explain first.
This is your argument, you should have sorted this stuff out already.

>>17823955
Naturalism and materialism are identical. The words are interchangeable. How can immaterial things be "natural" when they exist outside of the natural world?
>>17823958
You can try being specific.

>>17823961
Your explanation amount to "God does it" (if I am misrepresenting you, please tell me how God explains it)
that's not a high bar

You should accept my explanation "Nature does it", it's on par with yours

>>17823961
>Naturalism and materialism are identical.
They're not
>The words are interchangeable
They're not
>How can immaterial things be "natural" when they exist outside of the natural world?
Materialism means it is made of something physical, natural means it operates in our universe, which logic does, it just isn't material.

I always figured intelligibility was explained by humans being trained in the use of language
haha, turns out God does it

Reliability of sense experience explained by human biology?
Haha, NO!
God does it.

>>17823964
OK God bless you.
>>17823969
Sir these words have established meanings. The way you redefined naturalism would make it the belief the natural world exists, which is basically meaningless. But your replies do tacitly admit that under naturalism laws of logic could not exist (by definition) and therefore knowledge would be impossible.

>>17823961
>The words are interchangeable.
Totally, I only use the terms materialism, physicalism, naturalism, etc. When I talk to retards who believe in ghosts.
Just like big catch-alls that I don't believe in spooky nonsense.

>>17823975
>OK God bless you.
This is you tapping out of the conversation when it gets difficult. You lied about not doing that.

Fun fact, he was actually a neoliberal, the Hayek neoliberal style one, not the ordo liberal EU type.

>>17823686
>You can't claim any practical usable knowledge without ultimate knowledge
you can, just going by the results of applying such knowledge

>If you have no basis for knowledge and truth
the basis is what can be tested and what can be showed to work

>>17824046
you mean.... a liberal?

There are many types of liberals and outside of the United States, liberal refers to models of market. Ordo Liberal for example is considered more conserative culturally.

>>17822866 (OP)
Foucault is what happens when you are ideologically required to strip Marx, and by extension everything that leads to Marx like Smith, Voltaire etc., out of philosophy. Foucault was the inevitable result of the post WW2 capitalist system needing to reinvent western philosophy from zero on a purely magical basis because all preceding thought ultimately led you to Marx. Foucault didn't become important because he was right (or even non-retarded) but because he provided a fairy tale that could be held up instead of any kind of materialist analysis.

>>17824247
All of Marx ideas were already proven be worthless long before Foucault

>>17824265
Yet still the ruling class threw out the entirety of their civilizations corpus to keep people from thinking about him. Had they already "disproven" him they would not have needed the post-modernists.

>>17824265
they all just became "social critics" and hide behind intellectualism while producing nothing of value. "nothing we're told is true because everybody in the past had to watch what they say." That would be relevant, maybe, if we we talking about an alien race that we knew nothing about.

>>17823456
Every postmodernists ideas are smokescreeens for their personal opinions, mostly support for killing people they envy and raping children. None of their ides make sense without that context.

>>17824384
Socialists of the time did the exact same thing. They were just social critics. The exceptional socialists actually pointed out things like.... how england's share of the world's production collapsing and celebrating it

>>17823242
He isn't wrong though. Psychiatry always at least had to make sure to sell itself as useful to society, which meant conforming to whatever grander current year project society was high on.
Dagmar Herzog, in "Cold War Freud" specifically traces how Psychoanalysis in the US went whole hog in on the project of trying to make white women fuck white men again, which was part of the grand "saving white families" narrative.
She also maps out some of its long history of homophobia, which is probably why Foucault took very personal issue with the field.

>>17822866 (OP)
idk he went to moslem countries and raped their children there so that makes him based in my book.
I would be a LGBTQ+ ally if they targeted the children of our enemies but unfortunately they are only interested in raping aryan European children so they have to be exterminated.

>>17823399
>>17823412
Imagine going to college and ending up being exposed to a range of opinions, some of which you find disagreeable.

>>17824626
Psychology was adhered to by the same freaks that pushed socialism and is about as concrete. You can delete sociology and psychology and not lose a single thing of value. Both leftist fields with no foundation

>>17825192
Sociology and psychology, while being full of speculations and bad science, are immensely valuable. If you ever have children, you will spend about as much time worrying about their physical health as you will worrying about their psychological and social development. And without the knowledge contained in these two fields, you have no frame of reference besides perhaps your neighbour's kid.

>>17825202
You can make more solid judgements about a child's development through simple observation than wondering if they want to fuck their own mom. Kids are pretty fool proof

>>17824653
Leftism isn't an opinion it's a mind disease. Nothing but the equivalent of intellectually kicking the can down the road without explaining anything. Teaching kids about this in school is like taking a course on how to suck your own dick

>>17825245
You'd be a content man had they taught you that skill.

>>17825288
Falling into a cycle of contention of huffing your own farts sounds familiar

>>17825192
IRL, Euro, US and Comblock Psychology all strongly and readily reacted to societal demands, actually.
>https://lettersfromtomis.com/2025/05/08/mental-health-under-socialism-gdr-psychiatry-and-psychology/

>>17825245
>>17824653
I am glad i got exposed to it, but in the same way that I was exposed to Evangelicals preaching about Creationism. It taught me that some people are into some hardcore nonsense, and that they'll defend it with their lives, that many in the humanities departments are goofy idiots who are only hurting their fields.

Think: what can you DO with these ideologies? Nothing really. The most you can do is "discourse", which is teaching, writing, and lecturing, which is what academics like to do. Thus, it's something that can only survive in academia, and has little to no practical application outside of it.

You can think of profs as "content creators", and always hungry for content to make more content, and thus promote themselves, make themselves feel smarter, and enhance their careers and departments. They need content, and endless "discourse" is ripe. But you may notice a lot of "content creators" create fluffy bullshit that amounts to information pollution? Same dynamics at play.

And if you try to impliment these theories in reality I can only see it leading to authoritarianism, or institutional collapse.

>>17825298
Reacted to societal demands, huh? Is that why the best solution society came up with was to put all the crazies in a prison with orderlies and nurses to make sure they didn't ill themselves?

>>17825221
If that were the case, nannies would make the best developmental psychologists.

>>17822866 (OP)
Psychiatry is pseudoscience and snake oil salemen.

>>17825504
>my baby smiles at me, I'm not going to smile at it
this shit is literally ingrained in our DNA, we don't need somebody to give us some bs reason why it happens. Human society got along great for tens of thousands of years before psychology started cutting of kid's cocks

>>17825676
I agree. And I think most people would too, which is why they don't go to a child psychologist to find out why the baby is smiling at them, but they go there to find out why a 3 year old child has significantly slowed down in expanding their vocabulary. Is it a phase? Is it autism? Is it physiological? Is it stress-related? Psychology answers this.

>>17825942
Back then people just called them slow and that was that. I've been friends with actual aspies and they're pretty much normal, just slower

>>17826147
Back then people called PTSD, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis "hysteria" and that was that too. An unfortunate simplification that would worsen the person's life. We need more accurate ways to know which approach to choose. Developmental psychology gives us these tools. It is actually possible your 3-year-old isn't autistic and just developed introversion as a stress response. Your next steps as a parent would be radically different.

>>17826171
that's when you go beat up the neighbor's kid for smacking your kid in the eye with a plastic shovel

>>17824384
foucault reviving pederasty in his personal life was based and I'm tired of pretending it wasn't

>>17823064
>critiqued
As they still should be today
>Covid
Ah I see you're still mad

>>17823456
NTA but I'm somewhere in the conservative revolutionary camp and still find him quite useful

>>17826583
Pederasty doesn't mean pedophile, it was a social system that allowed the aristocracy and military to quickly populated itself with new candidates

>>17823089
how many boosters are you on bro?

>>17822866 (OP)
most sensible and empirically well grounded leftist.

>>17825202
>>17825221


I don't know why chuds on 4chan who never went to college meme this. But sociology does actually do and is based on science, it does both quantitative and qualitative research based on math just like economics do. Foucault is by no means the whole of sociology. Psychology makes way more far reaching claims than sociology does.

>>17827828
that's because its a very subjective field except for behaviorism. that doesn't mean certain schools are wrong, its just the latter bases their claims on what's observable.

>>17827828
sociology has even less tangibility than psychology

>>17827828
>>17827870
1st post itt just so you do not confuse me with someone that you have already replied to.
For most of its existence as an alleged science sociology has been largely speculative. Modern sociology has began using software like pajek for quantitative research, and analysis of social networks. Another step up was Fuzzy Set Theory. The biggest problem with sociology today it is that it's mostly used to study how the system can predict or prevent unwanted results, and how they can manipulate public opinion and force/advance behaviors and market trends.
Case in point is what they call Nudging [in Law], something that came to my attention for the first time due to the covid crisis. It opens a whole new box of worms when it comes to theorizing about "free will".

>>17828023
Nudging? you mean the bogus concept put forth by Cass Sunstein?

>>17828023
The only functional part of sociology is how to influence people with propaganda

>>17828027
Yep. Is it something that people are generally aware of, and discuss? I think the vast majority of people are utterly oblivious of these "tools".
covid was also the reason I started reading on Paternalism for the 1st time [picrel].

>>17828059
I'm more concerned about inner processes than outward actions, unless it serves a political telos, that is. basically just like Jung with a good dose of someone like Hoffer or something.

>>17824304
>commie thinking anything that happen and they don't like is part of a mega conspiracy to suppress them
case and point

>>17828023
Free will exists, it's just impossible to parse with zillions of decisions layered on one another.