Quote:
Originally Posted by BetoJR
Hmmm... erm... I... you mean there's no objectiveness anywhere? 
Look, you stick with your post-modernist theories and I'll stick with my academic views that the more we know about something, the more we know about something. This topic has become officially too weird for me. See ya! |
Can you really point out something objective that would go beyond solipsism? If so then there are ultimately objective thing yet so far I never heard of such thing.
You just have to believe that some things are objective - like saying 2+2=4 but even there the individual perception of the mathematical action exists.
And you should know that solipsism is not really post-modern. Unless you are saying that the first Cynics (note Cynics as philosophical school, not in casual meaning of cynics) since Socrates times where post-modern, or Descrates... which I hope you do not.
The question of objectiveness is still disputed as in what is really objective and can such thing be as objectiveness there. Some, like Nietzsche believed such phenomena as objectiveness non existant, some tried to defeat the solipsism (aka Descrates and his demiurg) with belief....
Basically it is the way, not to go mad, you just have to assume and believe some things to be objective even if you really look at deep enough you will see that what we held to be objective is really subjective, be it formula's or laws.
But again it wasn't what I was trying to point out with my posts. I was trying to say that you are assuming too much saying that it is a fact that more info deepens ones understanding of a certain thing and action - it really is not a fact, and can be disputed, specially in modern world where information has to be limited for us to understand few things better.
But lets go back to Kitamura, lol.
If you want you can come to some philosophy forums to discuss this theme, as objectiveness is one of those eternal problems that no one found an answer to so far (or in this case a proof that it really exists).