Some thoughts on 21st Century Gender Theory

[Raphael]

Any metaphysical argument can be avoided by splitting and joining terms. For example, a committed metaphysical idealist (of which I'm not one) could say it's a philosophical truth that scientific facts are not objective.

"I get to make true statements, but the people with whom I disagree don't"? That's special pleading of the most self-serving kind.

You're confusing truths (like math and logic), which are objective, with facts you find in so-called "reality", which are subjective.

Disagree, and that's all I'm going to say on this.

Umberto Eco had a unique position in calling himself a "minimal realist". He said that objective reality definitely exists, but most of the things people say are appearances generated by social systems, not objectively true.

Personally, I'm a mechanical materialist. I'd say factual statements pertain to the patterns of material objects. Most of the things people say are subjective, and therefore do not pertain to objective reality. Also, many people are simply deluded by propaganda even when they try to be objective.

OK, I don't really have a problem with either of those positions.

More generally, thinkers who tend towards postmodernism sometimes seem to have serious problems with telling the difference between the statement "There is an objective reality", and the statement "Everything some right-wing blowhard says is objectively true really is objectively true, and therefore shouldn't be questioned", and since the second statement is clearly nonsense, they therefore get this weird idea that the first statement has to be false, too.

As for reading important philosophical texts: Thank you for the offer, but no thanks. Modern era philosophy looks and sounds mostly like theology for atheists to me.

But then how do you know what it says? Judith Butler directly addresses heteronormative laws. What could be more practical than that? They're just using a large vocabulary. I don't understand why that has become a crime these days.

And it's not just "modern philosophy". Dialectical reasoning of the kind you dislike is explicitly used under that name in the works of Plato, who was after all, the arch-idealist, and then given lesser importance, but still used, in Aristotle. You will never find common sense outside mechanical materialism because human language is inherently inconsistent. People use language to gesture at phenomena they imagine their interlocutors understand instead of tediously spelling out every detail.

You don't have to believe what the philosophers say. Learning thought patterns people find believable is useful for creating fictional characters.

I can always read brief summaries of philosophical schools, or historical accounts of times and places where the followers of this or that philosophy had real power, or at least influence.

[rotting bones]

"I get to make true statements, but the people with whom I disagree don't"? That's special pleading of the most self-serving kind.

Anyone gets to make true statements as long as they're about math, logic, etc., not facts about material reality. This is because the concept of "truth" is derived from mathematical and logical demonstrations. What makes you think it applies to mere perceptions?

(This is not my argument. It's a demonstration of how you can get around any metaphysical objection ever by splitting and joining terms.)

More generally, thinkers who tend towards postmodernism sometimes seem to have serious problems with telling the difference between the statement "There is an objective reality", and the statement "Everything some right-wing blowhard says is objectively true really is objectively true, and therefore shouldn't be questioned", and since the second statement is clearly nonsense, they therefore get this weird idea that the first statement has to be false, too.

It's more like they don't want to insist that statements are "true" in addition to saying them. This is because they think our perceptions are shaped by social systems and they don't want to create repressive power structures by creating the impression that they're on a podium, lecturing at us. This is a less analytical and more practical position, but it has some parallels with Wittgenstein's deflationary view of truth.

I can always read brief summaries of philosophical schools, or historical accounts of times and places where the followers of this or that philosophy had real power, or at least influence.

Simplifications will show you static positions, not how people arrive at them. E.g. Until you hear the Quran recited in Arabic, you won't realize that Muslims appreciate it for its poetic qualities. My mother used to recite the Quran a lot. When I tried to read the Bible with her, she fell asleep. You won't see this dimension if you try to read the Quran in dry prose like Western missionaries seem to.