I "Am Very Open-minded"

@Sicarium Sure, as long as you have a internally valid system with a given set of axioms. 2+2=4 is objectively true within the mathematical system but only if its axioms are true. As soon as "2" and "4" and + and = are defined differently perhaps in a different mathematical system, then 2+2=4 may no longer be a correct statement.

You can decide X is better than Y because of reasons A, B, C but A, B, and C are ultimately arbitrarily chosen by you because it's based on what you value. Society can also decide X is better than Y for the same reasons but it would still be based on what the society values, which is sujective. Now, you can invent a self-consistent system where your axioms are that A, B, and C are the most important and fundamental ways we can judge something by. And because you and society think that X is better than Y at A, B, and C, then X is objectively better. That would be a valid statement, but there would be no external standard by which to judge which is more correct than any other. It would not be "objectively" better outside of that system you invented.

@speciman The post-modernist BS continues. 2 and 4 are not being "defined differently", they are not concepts I'm "inventing". Therefore, your entire comment, and line of thinking, is a complete waste of effort. Hence, post-modernist BS.

Post modernism only works if you are able to pretend there is no objectifiable, provable truth. Which is what you are trying to accomplish through mental gymnastics and vaguery. Yet, you are wrong. You pretending provable truth doesn't exist does not equal provable truth not existing. It only proves your own refusal to deal with reality in an attempt at clinging to a system of thinking that has no real value.

Which is why it fails in the real world. Objectifiable, provable truth: having ample food is better for the continued existence of the individual. In no reality is that not true. And yet, post-modernist play with that truth to try to justify and excuse starvation brought on by collectivism by claiming society just thinks starvation is bad and therefore it's not real. Which is a lie. Society does not define or decide what is true; societies, to the degree that they do, accept truths once proven.

You're even twisting open-mindedness to suit your purposes. Open-minded does not mean you believe whatever happens to pop into your sphere of thinking by playing around with what 2 and 4, or whatever else, means. Open-mindedness means being willing to consider evidence you might otherwise ignore, for the express purpose of seeing a potential truth you might have missed. Someone who seriously considers a proposal (post-modernism in this case) and finds that proposal lacking (because it's BS) is still open-minded. And they are judging the value of that proposal against known, and real, systems and standards in order to find the proposal lacking. Which they are able to do because post-modernism is BS.

Any real thinking and analysis, no matter what angle you come from, into post-modernism leads to the same conclusion. It's BS, which is why post-modernists try to claim exactly what you're claiming.

@Sicarium I never said 2 and 4 are defined differently or that you were inventing them at all. I used two different examples in my above reply; the latter part about inventing another system was unrelated to the first part about 2+2=4.

"Sure, as long as you have a internally valid system with a given set of axioms. 2+2=4 is objectively true within the mathematical system but only if its axioms are true. As soon as "2" and "4" and + and = are defined differently perhaps in a different mathematical system, then 2+2=4 may no longer be a correct statement."

This is mathematics. This is not post-modernism. Mathematicians will say, "if the given axioms are true, then 2+2=4." They will, for the vast majority of the time, not make absolute statements like 2+2=4 without first giving the caveat "if the axioms are true." Mathematics and logic are the only realms that deal with "proofs." Everything else deals with empirical evidence (science) or value-based judgments (opinions). They are not objective for the very nature that they are constantly changing when new information is discovered and tested and for the fact that they are falsifiable. Science, of course, is held to a much higher standard of rigorous testing and refinement when new information is discovered and hypotheses tested, unlike value judgments tend to be.

@speciman That's a common tactic with post-modernists. Pick one tiny aspect of your argument, argue it as if it's the central point, and ignore everything else while pretending the whole of the argument is irrelevant. I suspect post-modernists use this tactic to avoid any real critique of themselves.

You have added nothing. You've said nothing new. You've done nothing to advance your position. You've wasted time, yours and mine. What you have done is filled your comment with irrelevant points, red herrings.

@Sicarium I'm sorry that your experience with postmodernism has left you so bitter and angry that you feel the need to project onto me, something which you personally detest. I'm genuinely sorry you feel this has been a waste of your time. I hope you can find a more healing way to spend your time.

@speciman Now you're going with projection and assumption. Gotcha. Anything to avoid substance. Because post-modernism BS and you're a post-modernist sticking to the script.