jimmysong on Nostr: Nihilism vs. Reality ------------------- The crux of today's political divide isn't ...
Nihilism vs. Reality
-------------------
The crux of today's political divide isn't necessarily policy; it's fundamentally about how we perceive reality. On one side, we have a post-modern outlook that argues everything is relative, and absolute truth doesn't exist. On the other side, there's a belief in an objective reality governed by fixed truths and constraints. This division is metaphysical in nature, and it's not something easily bridged or reconciled.
This divide manifests significantly in how each viewpoint interprets narrative, history, and events. In a post-modern framework, power dictates reality; winners set the rules. Reality, in this context, is a creation of those who hold power. Contrastingly, a reality-based perspective recognizes natural laws and constraints that guide outcomes. While these outcomes aren't inevitable, they operate within a set framework that has its own rules and limitations.
One striking difference between these perspectives is the role of morality. The post-modern view lacks a moral dimension, suggesting that any group could dominate if they had sufficient power, thereby creating a different set of rules. The reality-based viewpoint, however, introduces a moral dimension. It proposes that those who align better with natural laws are more likely to succeed.
The post-modern approach is unsettling because it negates the concept of progress. In a world where no objective standards exist, every outcome is morally equivalent to any other. This outlook renders terms like 'better' or 'worse' meaningless since there's no objective measure for comparison.
Much of today's event analysis operates under this nihilistic framework. The underlying assumption is that current reality is arbitrary, a result of a series of coincidences favoring the existing power structures. While this viewpoint may seem politically correct, it is inherently flawed. Objective realities do exist, as do limits on what those realities could be. Just because we can imagine flying pigs doesn't make that a feasible reality.
Effective analysis must start with established truths or first principles. Without them, we descend into a realm of meaningless power struggles and propaganda, devoid of useful understanding. In summary, our approach to understanding the world around us should be grounded in an acknowledgment of certain non-negotiable truths and moral standards.
-------------------
The crux of today's political divide isn't necessarily policy; it's fundamentally about how we perceive reality. On one side, we have a post-modern outlook that argues everything is relative, and absolute truth doesn't exist. On the other side, there's a belief in an objective reality governed by fixed truths and constraints. This division is metaphysical in nature, and it's not something easily bridged or reconciled.
This divide manifests significantly in how each viewpoint interprets narrative, history, and events. In a post-modern framework, power dictates reality; winners set the rules. Reality, in this context, is a creation of those who hold power. Contrastingly, a reality-based perspective recognizes natural laws and constraints that guide outcomes. While these outcomes aren't inevitable, they operate within a set framework that has its own rules and limitations.
One striking difference between these perspectives is the role of morality. The post-modern view lacks a moral dimension, suggesting that any group could dominate if they had sufficient power, thereby creating a different set of rules. The reality-based viewpoint, however, introduces a moral dimension. It proposes that those who align better with natural laws are more likely to succeed.
The post-modern approach is unsettling because it negates the concept of progress. In a world where no objective standards exist, every outcome is morally equivalent to any other. This outlook renders terms like 'better' or 'worse' meaningless since there's no objective measure for comparison.
Much of today's event analysis operates under this nihilistic framework. The underlying assumption is that current reality is arbitrary, a result of a series of coincidences favoring the existing power structures. While this viewpoint may seem politically correct, it is inherently flawed. Objective realities do exist, as do limits on what those realities could be. Just because we can imagine flying pigs doesn't make that a feasible reality.
Effective analysis must start with established truths or first principles. Without them, we descend into a realm of meaningless power struggles and propaganda, devoid of useful understanding. In summary, our approach to understanding the world around us should be grounded in an acknowledgment of certain non-negotiable truths and moral standards.