He defined post-modernism as the claim that there are no grounds for truth, objectivity, and meaning...

There are plenty of intellectuals who have written 50 or so worthless books specializing on various topics, you could trip over them on your way to doing something more important than reading them. Even if an author has merit, one should remain ruthlessly critical when they totally misread another field of thought. In fact, it's a sign that we value these authors that we have the intellectual honesty to point out their flaws. So no, you are the one with the "shit argument", try to come up with something better

>literally makes an empty accusation against an accomplished scholar
>"I'M JUST BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST BRO"

>when the resident Jew-obsessed retard shows up

warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=transvaluation values

Do I detect a bit of ressentiment, my friend?

>there are no grounds for truth, objectivity, and meaning, and therefore conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power,
That's basically true.
>while the West is required to judge other cultures in their own terms, Western culture is adversely judged as ethnocentric and racist.
This is an accurate description of what is occurring, but it does not necessarily follow from the previous description. The lack of meaning, etc. means there's no imperative for the West to care about whether it is "racist" or not. We can do whatever we choose to do.

Are you going to repeat the accomplished scholar meme again?

youtube.com/watch?v=rgGrYLKlJf8

is Corey Anton the best youtube philosopher?

>the obvious connection between extensive scholarship in a field and domain over its basic concepts is a meme
Still expecting you adolescents to come up with any substantial critique of his statement

You need to make a real counter-argument. This doesn't qualify.

You sound like an authority on Nietzsche. Would you say you behavior and attitude constitutes ressentiment?

No, and this doesn't qualify either.

Scruton at least can discuss a topic without falling into a pointless analogy comparing the situation to Pinocchio or some shit.

What's so impressive about this remark? It's the same as saying "is that a fact" in response to someone claiming nothing is really true.

this, but the second notion is more because of global capitalism

ironically morons don't want to understand derrida, even though his notions towards anxiety in hauntology could be effectively used to argue for strong borders (differance)

racism is fundamentally negative

otherwise the difference would be recognized as something else, the west wouldn't call itself racist it'd call itself superior

words matter

>choosing to paint with mineral pigment oil paints instead of feces is fundamentally negative

>there's no imperative for the West to care about whether it is "racist" or not. We can do whatever we choose to do.

You don't seem to understand the power dynamic at play. "We," as in whites, are not making those decisions; an anti-white jewish elite is. That is why whites are viewed as inherently racist and evil, and the entity to be replaced, because that's an outcome beneficial to jews.

What he's saying is that, in the absence of grand narratives or meaning, relativism itself is the only truth. Ethnocentric and racist white nations are opressors, meanwhile any display of racism or ethnocentrism from a minority is empowerment or a cultural expression we should respect ("conflicts between views are nothing more than contests of power"). The academic definition of racism itself has mutated in order to reflect this: it's racial discrimination + power.

And if it is "negative"? So what? It doesn't matter; it has no meaning. There is only the will to power.

>Western culture is judged as ethnocentric and racist
How is this wrong?

There is no connection. But you can keep asserting it if you like.

Good, concise summary.

Does it matter?

If it's true then judgement is not adverse and the whole thesis crumbles.

But there are no grounds for truth, are there? So how does the reality of the situation matter?

What a retard. I guess that is why he went into philosophy and not science. Philosophy is the only refuge of the "Whoa man what if you are just like imagining if things exist bro" kind of people. He is a clown, a charlatan and a moron. Anyone can be an "expert" in Philosophy. It takes real skill and education to learn a science.

Scruton's opinions definitively don't matter to me.

whats wrong with his hair
we seriously need fa

This postmodernism thing sounds like something an insane Dostoyevsky character would believe in and ramble about.
Do you people honestly believe that a larger part of the western academia would just accept this nonsense and thess blatantly contradicting claims? Do you really think that the thinking and writings of thousands of different people can be boiled down to one or two contradictory sentences?

This is the guy that thinks any music made with computers is automatically bad, and that there is some builtin need for religion in humans, right?

By that logic all cultures are racist. Therefor his unscientific OPINION is bunk.

Why does the opinion of some unscientific faggot matter?

>Do you people honestly believe that a larger part of the western academia would just accept this nonsense and thess blatantly contradicting claims? Do you really think that the thinking and writings of thousands of different people can be boiled down to one or two contradictory sentences?
Yes.

>there is some builtin need for religion in humans
That's true though.

Is "doesn't understand postmodernism" the new "not real communism"?

No

>leftist """""arguments"""""

this is why you lost the election sweetie

Various philosophers associated with the movement had no problem replacing old systems of control with new ones.

Maybe for some people. I've never felt a need for it.

Different user. I take your side, but to be fair, modern economics is a huge counterexample.

Yes, and most academic thought filters down from a small handful of universities controlled by jews. There is also a massive amount of forced conformity. I know you've been told that academia is this bastion of free-thinking intelligent people, but in reality it's a bunch of gen xers and boomers who have swallowed more communist propaganda than you could ever imagine, are experts at toeing the party line, and take their orders from east coast jews heading the departments and filtering everything down into other western universities and then across the world.

This

You follow a religion user, you just don't believe it's one.

>That's basically true

This is your brain on p*stm*dernism

Sounds like your religion is believing everyone has a religion.

Best to define the word so we're not talking across purposes.

>>"The very reasoning which sets out to destroy the ideas of objective truth and absolute value imposes political correctness as absolutely binding, and cultural relativism as objectively true."
damn

That image is really retarded, so much fallacy.

>Race is a social construct
True, biologists and anthropologists stay away from it because it doesn't usefully define anything, actual genetics show a gradation of gene change across the geography of the world and no specific 'race' of humans is significantly different genetically from any other to warrant separation into the groups that currently are defined as races.

>White people are evil and racist
What does this have to do with race being a social construct or not? White people could be evil and racist whether or not race was a social construct or a biological fact. This isn't contradictory at all, in fact most of what this image tries to say is contradictory, isn't.

>True, biologists and anthropologists stay away from it because it doesn't usefully define anything, actual genetics show a gradation of gene change across the geography of the world and no specific 'race' of humans is significantly different genetically from any other to warrant separation into the groups that currently are defined as races.

Jesus Christ

the genetic groups are VERY distinct

youtube.com/watch?v=tHGNf6nWUm0

Roger Scruton BTFO'ing of Harry Potter is better than Bloom's desu.

Also he's pretty handsome

...

>18. Taxation needs to be fair. / Flat tax? What are you, crazy?
There isn't a contradiction here. Flat tax is only fair in some autistic, ideological sense.

>I GET TO DECIDE WHAT SOCIAL JUSTICE IS

It will be real communism when I do it. Promise!

I'm not an SJW. Increasing the tax burden on the poor and decreasing the burden on the wealthy so that you can say, "Well the percentage is equal so therefore it's fair," is a purely ideological maneuver.

the contemporary manifestations of postmodern thought that developed in the 60s most certainly do

whether or not fucking foucault set it out in this way in so many words is irrelevant

That's an interesting opinion you've just stated there. Can you actually refute the research instead of posting shitty macros, whose sources you probably didn't even check yourself?

Meanwhile, here in reality:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

>That image is really retarded, so much fallacy

Ever heard of Lewontin's Fallacy?

But you arbitrarily adjusting flat tax, which is the purest definition of a "fair tax", is somehow NOT an ideological maneuver?

Your diversity experiment is a failed one, shlomo.

Are you excited for the White ethnostate?

You failed to respond to the question I proposed: How is saying white people are evil in any way contradictory or related to at all if race is a social construct or not?

>You follow a religion user, you just don't believe it's one.
This is true of literally every pseud in the first world who talks big about not being religious.

You'll never come up with something completely fair, but yes, increasing the burden upon people who can afford it is simply practical. If you take 5% from a minimum wage worker and 5% from a CEO, you're going to harm the minimum wage worker far more. It's common sense. There's no absolute solution but a flat tax cannot be construed as fair.

>Race as a category is an invalid concept
>X race is Y
How is that not contradictory?

>A flat tax cannot be construed as fair

my sides

I don't really have a dog in this fight to be honest. I'm not that guy you were responding to. But if you really want to know what I think. . .how could white people be "evil" if the white race doesn't even exist? If white people are genetically indistinguishable from blacks how could we be more evil?

>Race as a category is an invalid concept
No, that isn't what the image said. Put the words that were actually said there and demonstrate that 'race is a social construct' is an incompatible statement alongside 'race X is Y.'
Insurance is a social construct. Insurance can also be things.

Correct, I was just about to say that this is the dynamic being referred to, but it's such a redpill 101 thing I couldn't muster the energy.

Everyone gets taxed the same percentage, that sounds fair.

"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm, only in our heads. "white people are evil" means that white people are evil in the material world BECAUSE of their race that libturds, as I've just explained, also claim only exists in the mental world.

this is a contradiction.

keep losing elections sweetheart.

It isn't fair because the burden imposed can be drastically different depending upon the wealth of the taxed individual, with the greater burden falling upon the poor. The fact that the percentage is the same means nothing, practically speaking.

Rich people never pay the full amount anyway, because they have access to tax shelters that the poor can't afford. If you raise rates high enough the rich will simply take their money and leave, so what's the point?

the burden imposed on the poor is greater when you use anything but a flat tax because the corporations see it as unfair and then use a million loopholes to dodge taxes, which means the poor lose out a lot more than if we just kept things fair in the first place.

I think I understand what you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that the concept of race being a "social construct", doesn't invalidate the concept itself. If so, I agree, and there's no contradiction.
But many people do categorize certain concepts as "social constructs" as a derogatory way to invalidate them. Basically they're saying "it's just made up".

Race being a social construct does not mean race does not exist. It means it exists as a social construct. The proposition was not that race didn't exist, but that what constitutes a race is arbitrarily defined by society.

>"race is a social construct" means that race does not exist in the physical realm, only in our heads.
Okay.
>"white people are evil" means that white people are evil in the material world BECAUSE of their race that libturds, as I've just explained, also claim only exists in the mental world.
Why does it being a construct mean that it cannot have properties? You have not sufficiently demonstrated this. Made up things can't have properties? The meaning of words only exists inside the minds of humans. They're completely made up and arbitrarily defined. Does that mean words can't actually mean anything, according to you, because they are also social constructions?

made up things cannot have properties in the real world you absolute mongoloid

That was a good listen. Thanks for posting it

He sort of demonstrated that they can.

So if I section people off into the groups 'average weight' and 'obese' by labeling anyone who is over an arbitrary weight limit into the 'obese' group I'm not logically allowed to say 'obese people all weigh above the arbitrary weight I've set' because a construct is not allowed to have properties in the real world? You really aren't making any sense.

>loopholes, etc.
I think you can have a simplified tax code that is still progressive. Anyway, I'm not advocating that the wealthy pay inordinate amounts.

>The proposition was not that race didn't exist, but that what constitutes a race is arbitrarily defined by society.

So when Dylan Roof chimps out and murders a bunch of innocent people, why should I share the blame? I'm only ARBITRARILY grouped in the same race as him, after all.

how do we define whether people are "evil" or "racist"? by the actions they take in the material world, not by some mental wishy-washery. if race is a social construct, how can a race of people also be evil when races are literally not real?

>I think you can have a simplified tax code that is still progressive

If it were that easy the loopholes would already be closed. Do you think the government likes it when people avoid taxes?

This brainlet considers Mozart and Beethoven to be the peak of music. He's a normie and a pleb.

Then what's the point of advocating a flat tax? You think exceptions and loop-holes won't be built into it over time?

I don't think even you know what you're trying to get at, friend.

You're not only getting off track to avoid the fact that you actually can't come up with a valid argument, but you've actually regressed in your understanding of the conversation. You say:
>if race is a social construct,
But then you immediately redefine it to be something with no overlap with the former definition you provided:
>when races are literally not real?
When you were just arguing one post ago that social constructs cannot have properties because they are made up:
>made up things cannot have properties in the real world
So make up your mind. Is it a social construct, or is it not real? Social construct does not imply not real. It implies 'exists as a social construct,' which you seem to have admitted because you were previously arguing for it not being able to have properties because it was made up. If it was made up then it's real. The shitty image macro said that 'white people are evil' is a contradictory statement to 'race is a social construct,' not 'race is not real.' And you've yet to provide evidence towards those two sentences being contradictory.

why did you reply to my post twice? are you new?

>Social construct does not imply not real.

in this context it does. it means "races are not real; all humans are the same no matter what skin color you have". stop trying to squirm, marxshit. your time here is up.

What do you think is the peak of music then?

It's the hallmark of those who desperately need to believe everyone is equally as irrational as them.

Not real communism. We get it. However, we don't like it, and we won't be having it or trying it your way.

Kendrick Lamar

It's a question of usage. When people say "race is a social construct", it's usually in a scenario where someone raises an argument based on some kind of essentialism; to claim race is a social construct is equivalent to ascertaining its arbitrariness and worthlessness as a tool to classify or characterize groups of people. That notion is evidently contradictory with what's implied by statements like "white people are evil and racist": in this case, race is not only presumed to be an accurate, effective metric which we can group individuals, but also the source of essential traits.

Certainly not the two most famous classical composers LMAO

Savant - youtube.com/watch?v=l87Xb9bKjrU