Postmodernish

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lahecil' post='1042553' date='Aug 13 2006, 08:55 AM']
Actually, I really really like the no traffic regulations analogy. Reminds me of Crowley, you can do what you want, but so can everyone else. You can do anything you want to on the road, but so can everyone else. Since everyone is also afraid for THEIR own cars, lives, and families they're going to go slower, watch for the other cars, and just be more careful on the road. Just like you. If anything, it could be safer, since there would be no laws, there'd be no one to break laws and create dangerous situations for everyone else. You'd have no reason to run a redlight, or speed, because there would be no laws against doing so. The fact that everyone else can do it too without getting into trouble would scare you into not wanting to do it at all.
[/quote]
While I tend to think there are too many laws and regulations in modern society, a situation of total and complete anarchy with no laws enforced does not create the peaceful utopia you invision. Rather, it leads to unchecked violence and chaos.
One man steals another's cattle.
He is caught by the owner of the cattle and killed for his crime.
At this, the brothers of the cattle thief kill the cattle owner and his wife for revenge.
Then the families of these murdered people get together, and go on a rampage killing all the members they can of their enemies' family, and raping the women.
And so on, and so forth . . .

Such situations actually have occured and do occur in lawless societies.

Your anarchist utopia presumes a world made of timid cowards, and does not take into account desire for revenge, greed, and bloodlust.

[quote]If anything, it could be safer, since there would be no laws, there'd be no one to break laws and create dangerous situations for everyone else. You'd have no reason to run a redlight, or speed, because there would be no laws against doing so. [/quote]
A silly statement. Something would still be unsafe or wrong whether there is a law against it or not. You seem to assume the only reason anyone would speed or run a light is for the sake of breaking the law.
People commit crimes because they think they can get away with them, or simply don't care about the consequences. If people are not scared out of committing crimes by the police or the law, why should we assume that in a lawless society, fear of other people would prevent any wrongdoing or unjust aggression? (especially in cases of the strong preying on the weak and defenseless)

Edited August 14, 2006 by Socrates

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1042912' date='Aug 13 2006, 07:40 PM']
While I tend to think there are too many laws and regulations in modern society, a situation of total and complete anarchy with no laws enforced does not create the peaceful utopia you invision. Rather, it leads to unchecked violence and chaos.
One man steals another's cattle.
He is caught by the owner of the cattle and killed for his crime.
At this, the brothers of the cattle thief kill the cattle owner and his wife for revenge.
Then the families of these murdered people get together, and go on a rampage killing all the members they can of their enemies' family, and raping the women.
And so on, and so forth . . .

Such situations actually have occured and do occur in lawless societies.

<snip>
[/quote]


Hatfield - McCoy
Israel - Palestine
Serbo-Croatian
Sunni-Shiite

[Lahecil]

Why would the man steal another man's cow if he knew there was a good chance he'd get killed for it? I agree that total anarchy isn't too great an idea, it was just an example.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]If we aren’t living in postmodern times, what times are we living in?

Does the fact that modernism contributed to relativism eliminate the fact that if followed modernism . . . ergo is “post” modern?

Are you saying the academic post-moderns run away from the label? Or they are saying that we are so far past modernism that they should be considered “post-relativists?”[/quote]

If we aren't living in postmodern times, we are still living in modern times. In fact, we are living at the tail end of a modern age (according to some thinkers at least).

Academic postmodernists, I assume, wouldn't consider our age "post-relativist" because they would recognize that reletavism is definitely a reality and a serious threat.

On this account, modernism didn't "contribute" to relativism but rather is its logical conclusion. If modernity began with doubt and skepticism then so too does it end. Modernity prided itself on scientific certainty, but in fact that certainty only leads to a more deep and abiding uncertainty and thus a relativism that is in fact more nihilistic and hedonist in nature than anything else.

[Colleen]

One of my professors calls this the post-post-Modernist age.

[cmotherofpirl]

we are in the post-christian era