The denial of Platonism in the broadest sense delivers us over to a metaphysics of construction, explicit in the moderns, but with the consequence that construction becomes deconstruction, since no standard or template is given by which construction must or should be guided.
The original Modernist hope or more accurately dream (Descartes) was that REASON could serve as the standard for CONSTRUTION—this is clearest in Kant—but reason or logos is "safe" only when held to a transcendent standard, the essences or natures of beings, the Platonic εἴδη.
Reason as λόγος, saying, most say something, and the standard by which it may be determined whether the λόγος is true or false, is not itself λόγος. This is found in not in saying, but seeing, in νόησις. But what is SEEN are the LOOKS of beings, viz. the εἴδη.
To deny the possibility of seeing the εἴδη and thus holding speech to account in what it says, is to embrace SOPHISTRY, speech which does not and cannot have basis in what is, and is indifferent to truth and falsehood. Sophistry, or what is the same, Postmodernism.
When there is no basis for reckoning a λόγος true or false other than λόγος itself (that is true which is SAID to be true), the result is clear: rather than looking to see whether a λόγος is true or not, one focuses on stubbornly saying what one wants/wills to be true is true.
We can see one consequence of this in the "postmodern politics" represented by Critical Race Theory: -
CRT says things that are not true, but it itself rejects all reference to truth, but orients itself toward saying what it takes to be in the political interest of black people.
Every move made is to advance "the narrative" by means of raw power. All concern about whether the narrative is TRUE is lacking.
Indeed, the narrative contains the narrative element that "truth" belongs only to white people, that judging a λόγος by its truth is White Supremacy.
One may wonder whether asking — or more accurately, demanding — of black people that they cut themselves off from truth (as a thing of White Supremacy) is really to their good.
I suggest it isn't.
You couldn't do more harm if you were trying to.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Beds don't have ideas. They are artifacts — it is *always* a mistake to simply interpret Socrates as giving a "straightforward" exposition of "Plato's theory."
That doesn't happen.
That is not the way to read Plato.
The "mouthpiece" theory is unutterably dumb.
Eva Brann rightly begins her famous lecture "Plato's Theory of Forms" by noting than "every word in the lecture's title, besides 'of' is wrong."
While the famous Political Compass test is a very blunt instrument, it is basically correct in distinguishing both a left/right axis and an authoritarian/libertarian one.
A good reason to be on the Right today, is that our current live options are Right-Liberty or Left-Authoritarian.
If you are a friend of freedom, you should be on the Right. The Left-Liberty faction has been eaten alive, and there’s no significant Right-Authoritarian wing.
The Free Right is where all decent persons should be today, fighting back against the Authoritarian Left.
An adult having sex with a child not being wrong falls straight out of Kershnar's view that nothing is wrong. He is an error theorist: he holds that morality does not substantially exist in any meaningful way.
Kershnar's view that "there is no morality" is only half insane. His argument is, broadly, "Both consequentialism and Kantianism fail as moral theories; so there just is no morality."
The proper conclusion, of course, is "so virtue ethics is correct."
I can't analyze Kershnar's argument more deeply without taking a deep dive into it, but I can already identify some lines along which it is flawed. He argues in general from "various theories of X fail; so there is no X, or at least, we don't know whether there is an X."
The rationalism of the Enlightenment was an overcorrection of the overcorrection of the Reformation, which opposed faith to reason. Reason can understand even things which are irrational — but the Enlightenment demanded (impossibly) that those things themselves BE rationalized.
The Left is always asking the question "What plan should be imposed to achieve social justice?"
That's the wrong question in TWO ways: you shouldn't be trying to *plan* society and such things shouldn't be *imposed*.
Humanity cannot be rationalized.
We are indeed the animal with the logos, but although essentially constituted by reason, we are not reasonable creatures for that.
The dogma of "representation" undermines all merit-based institutions.
It is merely code for "let in those who are not qualified."
It isn't even clear what "representation" means here. It doesn't mean it in the way a lawyer represents a client, or an elected representation represents his constituents.
It appears to be ICONIC: "He is black. Therefore, in his LOOK of being black, he 'represents' all blacks."
This of course depends on the idea that "every member of a race is an icon of that race."