A question for philosophical types...

Quote:

Ah, yes. But look at how scientists go about what they do... much of today's scientific research involves finding things, making discoveries that support whatever theory is most favoured at the time. When a paradigm shift happens, the focus of research shifts and people start looking for answers that reinforce the new 'dominant' theory. At least, that's the postmodern analysis of it. In a way, it's quite true - a lot of research looks at what has previously been assumed, and then tries to find new facts and answers that fit this model.

Yes, and I disagree with that. But there is one absolute - the reality of what is. People can attempt to gloss over that fundamental fact in the mess most people call their mind, but it is there.

EDIT: Therefore, any scientists who does research based on his own assumptions about reality (such as prior past assumptions: "the earth is flat," "the sun revolves around the earth," etc.) are not being true to an objective idea of a rational, logical science, but just another form of religion. It's not real science (science defined as a logical study of reality based on observation and analysis of facts of reality).

Quote:

Now imagine an incorporeal concept like "justice"... the process of definition just got a whole lot harder. In the end, language is basically a process of semiotics. Signs and symbols. The reality of an object or concept is never actually defined; all we do is give words and meanings to our interpretations of those objects and concepts.

And again, that's wrong, which is where the problems start. How do you even know what I'm saying? How do I know what you mean by "paradigm shift?" Because the words have an objective standard - until they are given an absolute definition, words are just a meaningless jumble of arbitrary combinations of letters, and letters are just meaningless symbols. But we give them objectivity. "tree" means this, "dog" is that.

But people don't understand that, and spout random words as if they were self-evident facts. Like "love." As your average person what, exactly, love is. Or God. Or heaven. People don't even know what these words mean, but they use them all of the time, without thought(because a lack of objectivity is, in essence, an escape from rational thought). People use phrases that have no meaning, but sound important. People use words that have a neutral definition, but a bad "connotation"(they make people feel bad), such as "selfish" or "stubborn" or "prideful." They use euphemisms which mean the exact same thing as the words they are trying to avoid, but make them feel better about it. These make absolutely no sense when any sort of logic is entered into the equation, but most people are not concerned with logic. And thus you have your post-modernism.

I'm down with Hideo Kojima.

We need more Bond-inspired opening game sequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

I'm down with Hideo Kojima.

How is Metal Gear Solid 2's ending "postmodern"? I am rather stupid and can't make the connection between what I'm reading about the philosophy and the ending.

While there is this huge grandiose (re: bs) plot about world conspiracies and yada yada, in the end it comes down to how one man (Jack) can scratch out an existence for himself. Etc etc. *doesn't feel like explaining it, because he doesn't like MGS2 and doesn't like postmodernism* :p

I wasn't particularly referring to MGS2 anyway.