Quote:
Originally Posted by Niamh.
Can you explain a bit more about that
|
In short, post-structuralism (loosely, post-truth) is the concept that we all have "our own truth" and there is no absolute; any description of the absolute is a social construction and ambiguous/up for debate. It's an essential concept in gender theory. Moral absolutism on the other hand is the idea that certain aspects of morality are absolute and beyond reasonable discussion; that discussing the "how and why" of a supposedly-moral statement "that anyone should be able to see is moral" is inherently
immoral (making them off the table for discussion, if you don't want to be deemed a wrong'un).
But no form of absolutism fits with post-structuralism... the nuances of morality would ALWAYS be up for debate and an element of subjectivity.
But I see a lot of left-rhetoric strongly advocating for both. Individual truth is real. Objective morality is also real. It doesn't blend, it requires a level of cognitive dissonance to even hold both views similtaneously and I honestly think that's where a lot of the frustration and aggression is rooted. Maybe. It's a work in progress
