why throwing around words like "anti-semitism" is fascism

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 26/02/03 22:59, "prozak at anus.com" <prozak at anus.com> wrote:

> 
>>> > > Anyone can call anything truth, but it does not make it so.
>> > 
>> > According to what?
> 
> According to logical assessment.
> 
Your Œlogical assessment¹ depends on a language, right?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Or, in social language, "Not for everyone"!
>>> >>
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Nope, was just pointing out social conditioning to assume
>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>> > >>> > > form of objective truth,
>>>> >>>
>>>>> > >> > Doesn¹t look like people with political power underwent your social
>>>>> > >> > conditioning.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Wrong.
>>> > > 
>> > How so?
> 
> They continue to preach that individual opinions are each correct,
> regardless of their contradiction.
> 
Sure. Just like Bush.
> 
>>>>> > >> > About your Œobjective truth.¹ ŒTruth¹ is dependent on criteria;
>>>>> criteria do
>>>>> > >> > not exist outside the systems of representation/signification in
>>>>> which they
>>>>> > >> > are established, and accordingly, neither does Œtruth.¹
>>> > > 
>>> > > So says one "point of view"; however, it also hopes to be "true."
>>> > > Since it just vanished in the shambles of paradox,
>>> > > 
>> > Quite an easy refutation, no? Perhaps you could explain how you can operate
>> > with a Œtruth concept¹ without criteria that are established in a system of
>> > signification.
> 
> This is linguistic confusion here:
> 
Some universal argument you¹ve got there, Œlinguistic confusion.¹ How,
exactly, do you know that you are not affected by it yourself?
> 
> first, to assert that objective
> truth doesn't exist is to be fooled by language; language assesses
> truth, but descriptions are also true in the sense that they to the
> degree possible accurately portray eventiture in external reality.
> 
External to what?
> 
> 2 + 2 = that's correct, an answer is needed. Second, to assert that
> subjectivism - all truth is within the individual - is anything more
> than dressed-up absolutism is error.

You wrote: Œmaybe it's wisest to stick with what we know, e.g. logical
truth.¹ What do you mean by Œlogical truth¹? Is that logic as in formal
logic?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030226/e2a175ac/attachment.html>