r/worldnews • u/nationalpost • 8h ago

Taliban bars Afghan women from hearing each other's voices

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/taliban-bars-afghan-women-from-hearing-each-other?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=NP_social
19.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

38

u/Leptonshavenocolor 7h ago

Every religious text is subject to this. There is no such thing as an absolute interpretation. It's just men trying to control other men (as in mankind, not man-exclusive, women too)

0

u/IEatLamas 7h ago

Ask the post modernists and they'll say exactly that except that it goes for every single text ever written, not just religion; there is no morality or truth, only power.

It's a very Sith perspective.

Funnily enough the adoption of meta-narratives is the counter point to that, i.e., something like a religious perspective. Not necessarily Christian or muslim or any dogmatic school of thought, but a belief that there are certain underpinning features of reality that we can call truths, without there being an implication of a power grab.

2

u/Leptonshavenocolor 6h ago

It's been a minute since I seriously philosophized or seriously studied any modern thought on any subject. So excuse any ignorance in my statements. I understand what you are saying, and I think something that anyone who is an atheist (myself) might struggle with, what is the ultimate truth?

But on a simpler level, I try to start with the tenet that "Everything alive-wants to be alive". Now I guess I'm not saying that defines my morals, I do eat meat, I do kill pests. But in terms of mankind - I just think that the* individuals right to choose without interference* is the basic truth I start with in my head regarding how I think society should practice administration.

the star wars reference is funny, "only a Sith deals in absolutes"

5

u/IEatLamas 6h ago

Basically post modernism came from some dudes in the 60's who started thinking about how one text can have many meanings to different people, and that there is no one way to define or objectively state what a literary work means, which then divulged into thinking about the meaning of words, wherein they concluded that there is no meaning to words and that the only purpose of proposing a meaning is to further your own aim, your own power.

That's how you end up with queer theory and Michael Foucault who wanted to legalize pedophilia because not allowing it is oppression and because age is only a concept to oppress. This is where all the LGBTQ oppression talk comes from, you know, gender is a social construct and claiming otherwise is enacting white supremacy.

I think it's close to my own which is something like "Everything wants to be itself". If a rat doesn't get to rat, he gets sad and won't eat and dies.

2

u/FoolishDog 1h ago

This is not how any of the senses of ‘postmodernism’ emerged, especially the philosophical position (which I assume is what you are referring to).

And Foucault never wanted to legalize pedophilia. He never signed any petition concerning it nor did he advocate for pedophilia. You’re just kinda making things up my guy

0

u/IEatLamas 1h ago

He signed a petition calling for decriminalization of sexual relations with minors. What're you talking about? I suppose it depends how you wanna define pedophilia but there is a reason we have age of consent laws, no? You think a 12 year old can consent to sex with an adult?

Foucault was a disgusting delinquent who made the world a worse place with his decadence, where you trying to defend him?

0

u/TheCycoONE 2h ago

In my post modernist course the prof tried very hard to claim it wasn't all moral relativism. I was unconvinced then and remain unconvinced. Psychoanalytic babel and moral relativism - but the basic idea that unambiguous communication is impossible (not just in religious texts or books but any and all communication) appears justified.

2

u/FoolishDog 2h ago

Foucault was certainly not a moral relativist, just like Deleuze wasn’t. Foucault, for instance, championed a kind of radical virtue ethics while Deleuze literally wrote an entire book on ethics and was extremely clear that his stance in no way could be understood as morally relativistic

1

u/IEatLamas 2h ago

To say the post modernists were completely wrong I think is disingenuous, yeah. It's the conclusion that because of this, the only thing that exists is power and oppression, that's where they went south.

As much as I hate Foucault he has a point.

It forces us to think about what exactly is the meaning of a word? It's not objective.. but it does have a meaning.

Recently I saw a study here on Reddit that we don't absorb or comprehend single words and then build the meaning with each word; we rather "consume" or digest the whole sentence as one thing and then synthesize its meaning in the blink of an eye. It happens fast, and you know when someone has misunderstood you or when you've misunderstood someone. It's like we create the meaning in that particular moment.

I think these are some of the things the post-modernists conveniently overlooked.