Thread by @ConceptualJames

The most concerning part of this is actually where he says the Postmodernists had it figured out. Mfers can't even add two and two.

https://twitter.com/Reason_Will_Win/status/1729297206824640937

We do not possess or have access to too many facts to make our way. The challenge is always determining which facts matter then figuring out what they indicate about the issue at hand. With 2+2=4, this is easy. With getting out of a desert, it might be harder, but nonetheless.

If you are lost in a desert or some other expansive waste, you can make shrewd guesses about certain things (certainly, you can determine a crude compass) and chart a defined course to follow. If you get somewhere useful (out or oasis), you proved your model/guesses. With a fact.

Getting anywhere or solving any problem is always done in three steps.
1) Where do we want to go? (Based on facts about perceived need)
2) Where are we now? (Based on facts about our current situation)
3) How do we chart and follow a course? (Based on facts about routes)

Figuring out which out of myriad facts are relevant to each of those things, including our capabilities, even to handle the unexpected or mistakes ("where are we now?") is a central task in solving all problems. Narrowing the field of facts down with reason and evidence works.

This is the opposite of what the Postmodernists taught. For them, there are no facts. All apparent facts are mere assertions of facts, and all assertions of facts are articles of power being applied. They didn't figure out a damn thing. The flipped epistemology upside-down.

The right name for Postmodernist "epistemology" is one they sometimes use themselves: gnosiology, as in gnosis, as in gnostic, as in they have the special Election needed to decide what matters, and you don't! This is very worrying from Jordan.

It's also directly contrary to one of Jordan's key principles about hierarchies, which is presumably the topic through which he got himself mixed up here. He used to say hierarchies are ubiquitous (the lobster thing) *and that hierarchies based on competence are least corrupt.*

He's absolutely right, but how do you assess competence, bucko? With facts. Which facts? The relevant facts, not random facts, not the combinatorial totality of facts and facts about facts. With clear facts like, can you do the job? ("Judge them by their fruits.")

Well, lets judge them by their fruits, eh? How did the Postmodernists do? Not very bloody well unless your goal is to confuse generations of young people into knowing nothing but that they need to cut their dicks and tits off to have social standing, or to destroy society.

The Enlightenment, if anything, hasn't failed. It's been too successful. It's driven us not to atomization but to decadence and distraction, to a place where we believe there are too many facts and that we should look in the wrong places for answers we don't know how to discern.