filtered_glory (filtered_glory) wrote in marshallhs,
filtered_glory
filtered_glory
marshallhs

Postmodern Theory Pwns

For those of you who have heard about the miracles of christianity and still oppose it bc you think its all bullshit, and that christians are just dumbasses who think the world is ruled by some guy in the clouds, yall must be crazy. The grassroot of all arguments made by athiests, agnostics, and christ-haters alike is made in a "realm" of truth. But empirics fail. Read and Respond.

 

 

 

Reality and truth within the world is an illusion. Jean Baudrillard in “Impossible Exchange” explains how the world has no equivalent and thus no truth, he writes:

“Everything starts from impossible exchange. The uncertainty of the world lies in the fact that it has no equivalent anywhere; it cannot be exchanged for anything. The uncertainty of thought lies in the fact that it cannot be exchanged either for truth or for reality. There is no equivalent of the world. That might even be said to be its definition – or lack of it. No equivalent, no double, no representation, no mirror. Any mirror whatsoever would still be part of the world.”

 

Baudrillard explains that the world has no comparison and thus, worldly reality cannot be exchanged for truth because there is no other comparison to derive truth from reality. Baudrillard explains why this creates an illusory reality effect, he writes:

“There is not enough room both for the world and for its double. So there can be no verifying of the world. This is, indeed, why ‘reality’ is an imposture. Being without possible verification, the world is a fundamental illusion. Whatever can be verified locally, the uncertainty of the world, taken overall, is not open to debate. There is no integral calculus of the universe. This is how it is with any system.”

 

Baudrillard continues by illustrating his idea with an economic tangent, he writes:

“The economic sphere, the sphere of all exchange, taken overall, cannot be exchanged for anything. There is no meta-economic equivalent of the economy anywhere, nothing to exchange it for as such, nothing with which to redeem it in another world. It is, in a sense, insolvent, and in any event insoluble to a global intelligence. And so it, too, is of the order of a fundamental uncertainty. This it tries to ignore. But the indeterminacy induces a fluctuation of equations and postulates at the very heart of the economic sphere and leads, in the end, to that sphere lurching off into speculation, its criteria and elements all interacting madly.”

 

Baudrillard argues that the economic system also has no equivalent so is thus indeterminate of what it actually is and cannot be figured out by any intelligence. Because there is no comparison that can be made to exchange the reality of the economic system we are in now, with truth about what will happen, everything is speculation. Baudrillard further illustrates his idea by linking it with modern biology. He writes:

There is great uncertainty, even in the sphere of living matter and biology. Schemes for genetic experimentation and investigation are becoming infinitely ramified, and the more ramified they become, the more the crucial question is left unanswered, who rules over life, who rules over death? Complex as it may be, the phenomenon of life cannot be exchanged for any ultimate purpose. One cannot conceive life and the ultimate purpose of life at one and the same time. And this uncertainty haunts the field of biology, rendering it also increasingly speculative, as each further discovery is made – not through some temporary incapacity on the part of science, but because it is approaching the definitive uncertainty which is its absolute horizon.”

 

Baudrillard argues that our certainty about the world cannot be absolute because the speculation is never solved through discovery. This further shows the subjectivity of truth from reality because there is no definite truth. Baudrillard goes on to link this idea with politics, he writes:

“The other spheres – politics, law and aesthetics – are characterized by this same non-equivalence, and hence the same eccentricity. Literally, they have no meaning outside themselves and cannot be exchanged for anything. Politics is laden with signs and meanings, but seen from the outside it has none. It has nothing to justify it at a universal level (all attempts to ground politics at a metaphysical or philosophical level have failed). It absorbs everything which comes into its ambit and converts it into its own substance, but it is not able to convert itself into – or be reflected in – a higher reality which would give it meaning.”

 

Baudrillard argues that politics has no meaning outside of itself and cannot be apoprached from a universal philosophical level, which means, politics and law also can have no truth, because there is no higher reality that can ground it into truth. Baudrillard continues on the issue of politics and law, he writes:

“Here again, this impossible equivalence finds expression in the increasing undecidability of its categories, discourses, strategies and issues. The political – together with its discourse – proliferates in scale with its fundamental illusoriness. The transcription and ‘objective’ assessment of an overall system have, ultimately, no more meaning than the assessment of the weight of the earth in millions of billions of tons – a figure which has no meaning outside of a calculation internal to the terrestrial system. Metaphysically, it is the same: the values, purposes and causes we delineate are valid only for a form of thought which is human, all too human. They are irrelevant to any other reality…”

 

Baudrillard’s argument here is that the political system as a whole is ever fluctuating which adds to its illusions. Moreover, he argues that any “objective” assessment of the political system serves purpose for only that certain system and is irrelevant to any other reality. The implication is thus, that whatever “truth” can be derived about politics can’t be applied to any other reality, including the church, because there is no higher truth to ground the two systems in.

 

But he forgets FAITH. It is true we never know anything for certain, and ideals may add to one another but be rendered meaningless inside other spheres, but the idea of absolute truth is false in its own right. We think but do not remember what we think, because even time in itself has no value; it self devides into seconds and milliseconds and nanoseconds until we reach no end to a single unit of time: thus reality is really composed of a sphere that can never be examined, thus never understood. Since truth does not exist in the realm of time, it cannot exist in the mind or anywhere else, because thoughts are in the realm of time. We think, but that memory is stored in the lobes of the brain, and we trust that whatever is in the lobes is what reality is. We constantly have faith that what our brain tells us is correct, but in all actuality, it could be wrong and everything in the world that we think we know, everything we do and have ever done could all be a lie. Thus, the end all for actually knowing something should be to have something to believe in. The argument shared by all who oppose any sort of faith is that they never really know: all are arguments made in empirics and through logic and mind. All faith except christianity requires you to do something or sacrifice something to achieve something in another realm, but since truth has no meanng, and ideals in separate realms mean nothing outside of themselves, the efforts are all in vain. But faith is the only ideal that transcends all. We never truly know anything, but have trust that it is right: thus christianity is measured through the faith in the savior; moreover the faith in that he died for our sins: it is the only faith or walk of life where something is done FOR you, but not done in request by you for an action. The only ideal in request is faith in your salvation. The metadebate continues on how and why things are, but ultimately the arguments made by athiests and agnostics and all those who oppose christianity fail to apply to the metaphysical level of truth.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 48 comments