Discussion about this post

User's avatar
jesse porter's avatar

I have made comments about modern thinking, rather teaching, casting doubt on such things as science, history, and religion that have been vehemently attacked as anti-science and anti-religion, etc. by 'authorities' in whatever subject matter being discussed. I have been nonplussed by this, for I learned long ago that knowledge is not some complete and perfect thing to be discovered, but is a search for truth. Whatever truths I hold, if I am a truth seeker, I must be willing to forego if I find contradictory truth that is more compelling. Such is not welcome among experts nor among well-read folks who should know better. Your viewpoint is a welcome find for me.

Expand full comment
James R. Green's avatar

I find myself weirdly muddled on the question of postmodernism. I think it's an advance in thought to be cognizant, as you do so here, that people of differing ages operate by different world models. The postmodern error is just presuming that all models are fake and ending the meaningful discussion there. A meaningful, post-post-modernism would have us evaluate, as you do here the differing models of the world and reintegrate them in dynamic competition to produce a more eloquent, more perfect future model.

In other words, truth isn't subjective, but we encounter it through subjective filters because there's just too much truth out there. We always want our filters to get better, and they can get better, and that's what history, science, and philosophy, ultimately, are for: (I go more into these ideas here: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/truth-isnt-subjective-but-we-subject )

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts