Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol’s role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn’t exactly what I was pointing to. It’d be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a “gray area” and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It’s not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different “lenses” and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Postmodernism is about subjectivism and suspicion of reason as a concept. Everything is up for interpretation, nothing is certain, objectivity is impossible, etc. It’s an ideology that’s hostile to the concept of any sort of totalizing truth.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol’s role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn’t exactly what I was pointing to. It’d be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a “gray area” and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It’s not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different “lenses” and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Believing that everything is nuanced, though, is absurd.
Everything is nuanced, it’s just that some things are more or less so, and sometimes the nuance exist but is completely irrelevant.
If everything is nuanced, then “everything is nuanced” must also be nuanced. As such, not everything is nuanced.
Take your post-modernism and shove it :P
How does that relate to post modernism? Give me some resources so I can self crit properly if I am wrong in my statement.
Postmodernism is about subjectivism and suspicion of reason as a concept. Everything is up for interpretation, nothing is certain, objectivity is impossible, etc. It’s an ideology that’s hostile to the concept of any sort of totalizing truth.
As a materialist I kinda hate it.