I am afraid your conclusion here is a policy of despair. To allow that facts are hidden by the truth, such that facts cannot be a way out is to fall for “their truth”, and so you will never find a way out.
Yes you cannot un-convert someone with just facts when they were never converted by just facts in the first place. People are converted by power, emotion and facts and all three in various combination might undo or change things, but if you are not in any particular power then you are going to have to go strong on emotion and facts. The fact that wokeism is the new pan western Catholicism is proof of its power, and to them a justification for their lazy shouts of blasphemy, inquisition and cancelling. This bastion is without a doubt intimidating and to some extent formidable – but it ultimately has no foundation, and will collapse and leave its followers un-affirmed and un-satisfied. It is facts, emotion and power which will undermine it.
You seem confused about objectivity. Colour can be defined scientifically and is dependant upon both the descriptive language of math and nature's correspondence to that description. The fact that nature is perceived through a language is not any impediment when it’s a true fact that the bloody apple does in fact keep falling on your head whether you are Newton or Einstein or whether you like it or not.
Subjectivity is an objective fact, but as a result objective facts cannot be subjective.
Subjectivity can only meet and interact within the approximation of an objective common ground.
I cannot empathize at all with your feelings if the words by which you describe them are not common and so an approximation to objective. Your language translation point over the Japanese word for wet grass (blue) is like the difference between base 10 and base 2 in maths. (I also suspect you have misunderstood a nuance of the language). Pointing out how different they are, and that one cannot have the words of the other and so will require different thinking, does not alter the fact that they are both equally good as a math language. To focus on the differences as evidence of institutional subjectivity is to just look in the wrong direction, or the same direction as to where you say “truths” are used to hide facts. Math is just not an interpretive community it is a language based on the brute facts and existence of numbers, which are there whether you access them in base 10 or base 2.
The problem is we are all believers (whether you think you believe in anything or not), and all beliefs have base core facts about them, which are incontrovertibly true. All other possible truths are brought to these as a plum line and accepted or rejected accordingly. To have a firm foundation beliefs must have these core facts fully grounded otherwise we are just talking in circles and in the end there is no moral reason for or against any kind of behaviour. (infinite regression is a problem both physically and morally, and in the end is a problem to be resolved by all - but the more pressing issue is finding a common ground where it can be discussed in the first place))
Wokeism has of course only just come of age, it is political correctness gone evangelical/inquisitional, and it of cause needs it base morality by which it can judge itself righteous or not, because above all men crave affirmation in some way. Its fundamental weaknesses are both that it has no ultimate grounding, but amazingly it has also given up the common and reciprocal ground of secularism, which was carved out with blood from previous religious denominational divides. But secularism has been misunderstood by the religious and irreligious alike; secularism is not freedom from belief, but instead the common ground which gives freedom to believe. This was one key point of that tree in God’s garden. Secularism is God’s idea.
The thing about Lineker’s statement was not really what he said, although there is an argument in relation to his BBC contract. In a secular space he should be allowed/free to say these things. The problem with what he said was the ridiculous and hypocritical responses it has elicited all around, proving that both the secular free and reciprocal space is as good as lost, but also that people’s main response is emotional outrage or blasphemy. Lineker’s statement could have been dissected and pulled to pieces in such a way as to make him much more careful before opening his mouth again, without thinking things through more clearly (although he won is tax case, so maybe he did). But instead the response was he can’t say that, that’s blasphemy and then in subsequent support for him you can’t say that its blasphemy straight back to you. The fact is that to declare blasphemy is in the end always an act of violence against the other, it is in the end a denial of our common humaity by which we can express our diversity. We can only live together by allowing a common objective secular space, which enables freedom, and the new religion of Wokeism has to grow up quick and realise this as well. The way out of the hall of mirrors is to muster emotion with facts about this common space, which is also our common humanity, but fudging the idea of objective is not going to help. The fact that Wokeism is taking us back to a new dark age of blasphemies is of course depressing, we thought were living off the achievements of so many ‘modern’ ladder climbs up near the end of the board and now Wokeism has taken us down the bloody big snake. But the game is not to revel in being near the end with a wonderful view – the game is always onwards and upwards with steady patience.
It's not a confusion about objective reality (or about language - I worked as a Japanese->English translator for years). There is, of course, an objective reality. But we can only describe it through language, and language is socially constructed. Thus, since we use language to think about and account for reality, we can't be said to interface with objective reality directly. This is not actually a very radical claim - it couldn't really be otherwise. And it's important to think about its effects.
Ok I looked up the issue of blue grass, and it is nuanced as I expected. It turns out that Japanese does not traditionally have a word for green, and it seems many other languages are similar. One can see why this is so as blue and green are close to spectrum and also yellow added to blue makes green. The colour green is therefore described as a variation of blue in a particular context. This is not unlike how we did not have a word for orange until oranges were imported. The robin red breast, was names red because at the time there was no distinct word for orange. Other examples of this kind of thing is how to translate “anchor” into a language and culture which has no sea going boats. – you end up with tent peg or something similar.
Is one language right? I think the answer to this is whether one or other has been hijacked from its true purpose, i.e. to be a common space of common meaning by which information and knowledge can be past on, in a way which corresponds to the original. Think of Chinese whispers were the message and meaning gets through un garbled.
I am also not sure if you are right about post-modernist still believing in an objective reality is correct either. The only objective reality of the postmodernist is the current “official” social construct, which might of course change tomorrow.
Facts are obscured by “the truth” because of the way people believe, and understanding this is part of the way out of the post modern hall of mirrors. The point is “the truth”, which post modernists do not ultimately believe in, is always correspondent to what are someone's core truths. (whether those “core truths” are true or not). The truth obscures facts because each “new fact” is brought to and compared with “the truth” of the fundamental “core facts”. If it is found not to be correspondent it is rejected.
The post-modern simulacra of truth is correspondence to the current social construct. But this is just bloody nonsense, the truth is the apple will keep falling on your head whatever the social construct about it. The language of science is maths. It only adds up and is true when it correctly describes and predicts what nature is doing. Social construction in relation to this is limited and in the end trivial. It is what base of maths are we using and what units of measurement, but this makes no ultimate difference to meaning of the accuracy of what is being described. When the Japanese describe wet grass they do mean green!
Is maths inherently connected to the things it describes? No, it is spiritual or abstract to it. And yet it describes and corresponds to certain aspects about it perfectly. The idea that any descriptor could be “inherently connected” to the thing it is trying to describe is also just nonsense. To be inherently connected disables it as a descriptor, because it becomes part of the thing itself. All meaning and truth is a translation from one form to another, is this true to that etc, and this is why the issue of infinite regression is a real problem, which all world views must resolve to be coherent., and none do. But it needs a common space to describe it.
This detachment of language is not an excuse for relativism/subjectivism, it is the only way it can be a true objective descriptor, even if we are still crap at using it.
The social construction of language is relevant to it being a common space by which objective truth and meaning can be transferred, even extending to objectively “how I felt”. But for the postmodernist language has been taken off this gold standard of objective truth, and is instead based on only a democratic promise – to trickle down the current democratic construction, which in the end is at the behest of the most powerful and influential. This is an incredibly dangerous place to be, as it ultimately allows tyrants and authoritarianism “for the greater good of everyone. Pandering to some post modernistic notion that language is just a social construction, for us to construct anything with like with including some how allowing that most women do not have penis’s is no way out of your hall of mirrors.
Language is a social construction, which creates a neutral space, for the purpose of passing on objective truth and meaning. Take it off this gold standard and it becomes the propaganda of the most powerful and influential for whatever their purpose might be.
You couldn't have proved my point more perfectly if you'd tried. Rather than accept what I am telling you, as a Japanese to English translator of considerable experience and somebody who lived in Japan for a decade, you instead went and looked up some 'facts' of your own (presumably on google) in order to adduce something to challenge my narrative. We are, in other words, in the debate over the Japanese word for 'green', not presenting one another with evidence at all, but rather with simulacra that reinforce our prior conceptions and compete against one another on a 'who shouts loudest' basis. This is Baudrillard's point in a nutshell.
Language is not neutral. It is never neutral, because it is never used for neutral reasons. I feel a post about Stanley Fish may be in order, because he helps clarify things.
Hi, I got here via way of the daily sceptic.
I am afraid your conclusion here is a policy of despair. To allow that facts are hidden by the truth, such that facts cannot be a way out is to fall for “their truth”, and so you will never find a way out.
Yes you cannot un-convert someone with just facts when they were never converted by just facts in the first place. People are converted by power, emotion and facts and all three in various combination might undo or change things, but if you are not in any particular power then you are going to have to go strong on emotion and facts. The fact that wokeism is the new pan western Catholicism is proof of its power, and to them a justification for their lazy shouts of blasphemy, inquisition and cancelling. This bastion is without a doubt intimidating and to some extent formidable – but it ultimately has no foundation, and will collapse and leave its followers un-affirmed and un-satisfied. It is facts, emotion and power which will undermine it.
You seem confused about objectivity. Colour can be defined scientifically and is dependant upon both the descriptive language of math and nature's correspondence to that description. The fact that nature is perceived through a language is not any impediment when it’s a true fact that the bloody apple does in fact keep falling on your head whether you are Newton or Einstein or whether you like it or not.
Subjectivity is an objective fact, but as a result objective facts cannot be subjective.
Subjectivity can only meet and interact within the approximation of an objective common ground.
I cannot empathize at all with your feelings if the words by which you describe them are not common and so an approximation to objective. Your language translation point over the Japanese word for wet grass (blue) is like the difference between base 10 and base 2 in maths. (I also suspect you have misunderstood a nuance of the language). Pointing out how different they are, and that one cannot have the words of the other and so will require different thinking, does not alter the fact that they are both equally good as a math language. To focus on the differences as evidence of institutional subjectivity is to just look in the wrong direction, or the same direction as to where you say “truths” are used to hide facts. Math is just not an interpretive community it is a language based on the brute facts and existence of numbers, which are there whether you access them in base 10 or base 2.
The problem is we are all believers (whether you think you believe in anything or not), and all beliefs have base core facts about them, which are incontrovertibly true. All other possible truths are brought to these as a plum line and accepted or rejected accordingly. To have a firm foundation beliefs must have these core facts fully grounded otherwise we are just talking in circles and in the end there is no moral reason for or against any kind of behaviour. (infinite regression is a problem both physically and morally, and in the end is a problem to be resolved by all - but the more pressing issue is finding a common ground where it can be discussed in the first place))
Wokeism has of course only just come of age, it is political correctness gone evangelical/inquisitional, and it of cause needs it base morality by which it can judge itself righteous or not, because above all men crave affirmation in some way. Its fundamental weaknesses are both that it has no ultimate grounding, but amazingly it has also given up the common and reciprocal ground of secularism, which was carved out with blood from previous religious denominational divides. But secularism has been misunderstood by the religious and irreligious alike; secularism is not freedom from belief, but instead the common ground which gives freedom to believe. This was one key point of that tree in God’s garden. Secularism is God’s idea.
The thing about Lineker’s statement was not really what he said, although there is an argument in relation to his BBC contract. In a secular space he should be allowed/free to say these things. The problem with what he said was the ridiculous and hypocritical responses it has elicited all around, proving that both the secular free and reciprocal space is as good as lost, but also that people’s main response is emotional outrage or blasphemy. Lineker’s statement could have been dissected and pulled to pieces in such a way as to make him much more careful before opening his mouth again, without thinking things through more clearly (although he won is tax case, so maybe he did). But instead the response was he can’t say that, that’s blasphemy and then in subsequent support for him you can’t say that its blasphemy straight back to you. The fact is that to declare blasphemy is in the end always an act of violence against the other, it is in the end a denial of our common humaity by which we can express our diversity. We can only live together by allowing a common objective secular space, which enables freedom, and the new religion of Wokeism has to grow up quick and realise this as well. The way out of the hall of mirrors is to muster emotion with facts about this common space, which is also our common humanity, but fudging the idea of objective is not going to help. The fact that Wokeism is taking us back to a new dark age of blasphemies is of course depressing, we thought were living off the achievements of so many ‘modern’ ladder climbs up near the end of the board and now Wokeism has taken us down the bloody big snake. But the game is not to revel in being near the end with a wonderful view – the game is always onwards and upwards with steady patience.
Mr Dee
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
It's not a confusion about objective reality (or about language - I worked as a Japanese->English translator for years). There is, of course, an objective reality. But we can only describe it through language, and language is socially constructed. Thus, since we use language to think about and account for reality, we can't be said to interface with objective reality directly. This is not actually a very radical claim - it couldn't really be otherwise. And it's important to think about its effects.
David
Ok I looked up the issue of blue grass, and it is nuanced as I expected. It turns out that Japanese does not traditionally have a word for green, and it seems many other languages are similar. One can see why this is so as blue and green are close to spectrum and also yellow added to blue makes green. The colour green is therefore described as a variation of blue in a particular context. This is not unlike how we did not have a word for orange until oranges were imported. The robin red breast, was names red because at the time there was no distinct word for orange. Other examples of this kind of thing is how to translate “anchor” into a language and culture which has no sea going boats. – you end up with tent peg or something similar.
Is one language right? I think the answer to this is whether one or other has been hijacked from its true purpose, i.e. to be a common space of common meaning by which information and knowledge can be past on, in a way which corresponds to the original. Think of Chinese whispers were the message and meaning gets through un garbled.
I am also not sure if you are right about post-modernist still believing in an objective reality is correct either. The only objective reality of the postmodernist is the current “official” social construct, which might of course change tomorrow.
Facts are obscured by “the truth” because of the way people believe, and understanding this is part of the way out of the post modern hall of mirrors. The point is “the truth”, which post modernists do not ultimately believe in, is always correspondent to what are someone's core truths. (whether those “core truths” are true or not). The truth obscures facts because each “new fact” is brought to and compared with “the truth” of the fundamental “core facts”. If it is found not to be correspondent it is rejected.
The post-modern simulacra of truth is correspondence to the current social construct. But this is just bloody nonsense, the truth is the apple will keep falling on your head whatever the social construct about it. The language of science is maths. It only adds up and is true when it correctly describes and predicts what nature is doing. Social construction in relation to this is limited and in the end trivial. It is what base of maths are we using and what units of measurement, but this makes no ultimate difference to meaning of the accuracy of what is being described. When the Japanese describe wet grass they do mean green!
Is maths inherently connected to the things it describes? No, it is spiritual or abstract to it. And yet it describes and corresponds to certain aspects about it perfectly. The idea that any descriptor could be “inherently connected” to the thing it is trying to describe is also just nonsense. To be inherently connected disables it as a descriptor, because it becomes part of the thing itself. All meaning and truth is a translation from one form to another, is this true to that etc, and this is why the issue of infinite regression is a real problem, which all world views must resolve to be coherent., and none do. But it needs a common space to describe it.
This detachment of language is not an excuse for relativism/subjectivism, it is the only way it can be a true objective descriptor, even if we are still crap at using it.
The social construction of language is relevant to it being a common space by which objective truth and meaning can be transferred, even extending to objectively “how I felt”. But for the postmodernist language has been taken off this gold standard of objective truth, and is instead based on only a democratic promise – to trickle down the current democratic construction, which in the end is at the behest of the most powerful and influential. This is an incredibly dangerous place to be, as it ultimately allows tyrants and authoritarianism “for the greater good of everyone. Pandering to some post modernistic notion that language is just a social construction, for us to construct anything with like with including some how allowing that most women do not have penis’s is no way out of your hall of mirrors.
Language is a social construction, which creates a neutral space, for the purpose of passing on objective truth and meaning. Take it off this gold standard and it becomes the propaganda of the most powerful and influential for whatever their purpose might be.
JDee
You couldn't have proved my point more perfectly if you'd tried. Rather than accept what I am telling you, as a Japanese to English translator of considerable experience and somebody who lived in Japan for a decade, you instead went and looked up some 'facts' of your own (presumably on google) in order to adduce something to challenge my narrative. We are, in other words, in the debate over the Japanese word for 'green', not presenting one another with evidence at all, but rather with simulacra that reinforce our prior conceptions and compete against one another on a 'who shouts loudest' basis. This is Baudrillard's point in a nutshell.
Language is not neutral. It is never neutral, because it is never used for neutral reasons. I feel a post about Stanley Fish may be in order, because he helps clarify things.