I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don’t understand the work they’re reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they’re trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it’s kind of a null position to argue.
It’s more recent idealogy, namely postmodernism. They genuinely deny the existence of universals in all respects. But I am yet to see a legitimate (philosophical) argument supporting that 🤷 seems more like a pop culture thing than real philosophy.
Post-modernism denies grand narratives and puts forward that people will deceive themselves for their own benefit.
And indeed that values and ideals are socially contracted, so what is “Good” will vary across space-time.
I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don’t understand the work they’re reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they’re trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it’s kind of a null position to argue.
It’s more recent idealogy, namely postmodernism. They genuinely deny the existence of universals in all respects. But I am yet to see a legitimate (philosophical) argument supporting that 🤷 seems more like a pop culture thing than real philosophy.
Post-modernism denies grand narratives and puts forward that people will deceive themselves for their own benefit.
And indeed that values and ideals are socially contracted, so what is “Good” will vary across space-time.
Not that there is no Truth.