Marxism or postmodernism fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I have been reading about Marxism and Postmodernism recently. I don’t like either of them. There is a type of logic upon which both are based, that X is right or wrong depending on the relative power of the person or group making the claim.
I saw a meme which illustrates the problem. It said...
Isaac Newton: Time is absolute
Einstein: Time is relative
Marx: Time was invented by clock companies to sell more clocks.
The idea of the meme is that X is only true because it was said by the group in power. If a different group was in power who said that Y was true then so it would be.
Furthermore this type of thought leads to a rejection of absolute truth. This leads to such claims as...
It is believed that the Earth is spherical instead of flat not because this is objectively true, but because it was said so by those most in control of the discourse, meaning that if flat-earthers were in charge then it would be true that the earth was flat.
I see the the following of the rules of logic as tantamount to an affirmation of the reality of objective truth. If there is no objective truth then what is the point of telling someone that their argument leads to false conclusions. If truth is relative then then I could say 2+2=5 and it would be true. So that’s my first question. Is this the point of fallacies to protect the idea of objective truth? Also are there specific logical rules one can use to defend against Marxist or postmodernist ideas?
Comments on Question
Answers
1I see the the following of the rules of logic as tantamount to an affirmation of the reality of objective truth. If there is no objective truth then what is the point of telling someone that their argument leads to false conclusions.
Firstly, only extreme relativists deny objective truth; this eliminates most Marxists and POMOs.
Secondly, denying objective truth results in conflicting conditions since it relies on objective definitions of the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity, in addition to (supposedly) making an objective statement itself. This makes extreme relativism nonsense and thus unworthy of consideration.
Thirdly, the truth value of a statement does not rest upon whoever has the most 'power' - now, power in this case is not clearly defined; however, any argument that concludes a statement is true/more credent because the speaker or a relevant party has more 'power' is committing an irrelevant appeal to false authority.
The point often made by POMOs though, that is salient, is that groups in power tend to have an interest in maintaining their power, and they do so by restricting discourse so that only a narrow range of ideas can be expressed. This is achieved not only through overt censorship, but also through language. Thus, what is considered 'objective' is actually somewhat relative. You may or may not agree with this interpretation, but it is worth thinking about.
Also are there specific logical rules one can use to defend against Marxist or postmodernist ideas?
Depends on the argument you're dealing with; you can parse it syllogistically, then check for 1) formal logical errors, 2) false premises, 3) bad inter-premise inferences, and 4) relative importance of selected premises.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
You might not like it, but the logic of those systems is perfectly valid. Unless you want to be a gullible moron, you have to accept that sometimes people do use their power to make stuff up and that they can make it seem objectively true.
2+2=5 is true. The assumption that 2+2 is true is based upon certain unspoken assumptions about the nature of the numbers you are adding up.
In many cases two objects added with two objects makes a fifth object without the original four objects ceasing to exist. So 2+2 does equal 5 in that case.