The Post- Modern Crisis Of Social Morality And Ethics

It used to be that morality and ethics could be defended by god or religion but then the scientific revolution came in destroying all conveniences of that.

Infact tracing morality or ethics historically god and religion is where it all originated as concepts.

Without either morality and ethics as systematic beliefs or ideals would of never been able to socially evolve like they have within time.

Next it was thought that morality and ethics could be defended by concepts like society, government, or social order but various contradictions now are eroding the entire fabric of those premises leaving them completely bared naked.

Contradiction shows a level of imperfection inherited and with imperfections there begs the question of why a continuance of obedience to such flawed values need to go on any further.

What then does the post modern state have in store for morality or ethics?

The modern state of philosophical morality or ethics is in a state of crisis for moral philosophers everywhere are coming to know that no matter how hard they try to idealize either relativism, emotivism, skepticism, and nihilism is hindering their ability to construct a objectifiable directed centralized value on the issue.

The various contradictions of government, society, and social order are becoming numerous where even that as the last safe bastion of morality or ethics is becoming completely destroyed by it's own weight.

So, what does post modern morality and ethics look like within it's current crisis? It is one where moral philosophers and those within control or authority of society don't even bother trying to defend their assumed principles anymore as the central theme of maintaining authority becomes the only thing matters. Maintaining control is the only thing that matters in the post modern theme of morality and ethics where explanations of either don't really matter at all.

It is one where beliefs or ideology is not explained but rather simply enforced at gun point through using fear of pain and punishment.

It is one where moral beliefs and ideologies are enforced by violent coercive methods alone not by reason.

Physical pain and punishment then becomes the only instrumental basis that is left to a post modern crisis of morality or ethics as both are the only foundations left to it still standing.

The only foundation left of post modern ethics and morality is the tyranny of control.

The tyranny to inflict pain and punishment.

Once you dissect the assumed truths out of morality and ethics violence becomes the only means both have left in order to enact their means of influence on other people or the world in general.

This becomes the error and failure of the post modern paradigm of morality or ethics. This becomes it's crisis.

Listen how he describes Ayn Rand and Nietzsche as a "take no prisoners" philosophies.
So, imbeciles equate any positions that do not admit fallibility, or do not acknowledge that even an absurdity is possible, in a world with no absolutes, as a psychology that antagonizes their own "let's agree to disagree", and "there's nothing worth fighting or dying for" psychology of humility and compromises as belonging to the same kind of philosophy.
In their degenerate minds Rand and Nietzsche are both members of the same club of "hard ones" that will not bow to feebleness and idiocy, because nobody knows the absolute truth.
The 'ideal" is a world where nobody every takes himself seriously or ever believes their own positions are better than another's....because in their fucked-up mind there  is no way to determine which is absolutely right and which is absolutely wrong, so, in theory all is equally right and equally wrong.

They avoid, like the Devil in their Biblical psyche, the tactic of connecting noumena to phenomena using semiotics - using words/symbols...which is another way of describing the scientific method and empiricism.
Even if you try to they will run to their safe-zone of doubting sensuality altogether. The only "correct" answer is nobody knows so let's all agree what we ought to consider proper and good, without hurting or insulting anyone.

Survival of the fittest scares them...and anyone willing to test themselves and their views in this primal arena, is, to such feeble cowards, barbarians, or fascists....or..."objectivists"...Ha!!!
In effect they want to change the world, but are so helpless, so impotent, because their views are naive and childish, that all they have is the strategy of spreading their won cynicism and their own infantile psychology - reducing all to females or children.
Like Hicks said...deconstructionists want to de-construct everything and replace it with nothing.
Listen to Hicks describe the post-modern psychology perfectly.
There are actual "living" people - mentally dead - who prove this description by simply being themselves.
I know of a few examples.

Understanding post-modernism helps understand the symptomatology of nihilism but not the source.
In my view one can find this source in emerging self-consciousness and the insecurity and vulnerability this produces, necessitating a defensive reaction.
It helps in the understanding of how Nihilism, evolves - like many viruses - from Abrahamism, to Marxism and then to its current form named post-modernism.
We will find that many of the ones still infected have gone though the entire gamut of varieties. a quintessential part of this delusion is "progress" so its adaptations, from one period to the next, is felt, by them, as them advancing or "growing," i.e., maturing, even if they are remaining static, never replacing the fundamental principles that connects all these variances - one of which is the use of language - logos - to disconnect from natural order, immersing the mind in itself, or in a communal hive-mind, represented by a central ideology.
It also helps in understanding what the (((parasite))) exploits and how it does so using semiotics.

Knowing the post-modern mind-set leads to an understanding of it's underlying psychology.
It's motives are illuminated, and with them its tactics, i.e., methods.
Dr. Hicks provides a good explanation of what post-modernism is, in relation to modernism.
How the same psychology can progress from Abrahamism, to Marxism and then to the current post-modern requires an understanding of the common traits in all these world-views; expression of defensiveness that often resorts to infantile thinking, based on a naive evaluation of the human condition.

To understand this disease you must trace it back to its source - patient X.

Stephen Hicks traces post-modernism back to Kant...
The psychological weakness can be traced back further, to the emergence of self-awareness, i.e., self-consciousness.
Nihilism is a reaction to the insecurities and vulnerabilities the conscious mind is exposed to as it becomes self-aware. A defensiveness when exposed to how it relates - compares - with reality, and with other conciousness organisms; defensiveness that inverts the subject/object, noumenon/phenomenon relationships where the merge, i.e., semiotics.
Nihilism is entirely language based when it appropriates language and redirects it back to other noumena, creating the environment for solipsism.
Words referring to more words; text referring to more text.

The post-modern nihilist is desperate to hide himself in universality. He must convince himself, first, and then others, that all minds do exactly what he knows he is guilty of.
He denies the existence of world, and the possibility of approaching objectivity, without ever attaining it, by using the absent absolute.
In his demented mind, if no absolute objectivity is possible then all is equally guilty of subjectivity. Equalization is achieved via the absence of absolutes, i.e., via the nil.
In either/or primal thinking, if it isn't absolutely so - as it is defined in theory - then it is not absolutely so.
So, in lieu of an absolute being, absolute nothingness is proven. They evade hierarchies by evoking the absolute in its absence.
This is a slight modification of the Christian method of demanding from infidels to disprove the existence of their one-god, as they defined it. In their fucked up brains, if their one-god is not absolutely disproved then he is absolutely proved.

Using the same methodology of a typical post-modern desperate degenerate let us apply it to strength and/or power.
A Desperate Degenerate intuitively knows he is a feeble coward, and that he cannot prove his strength - he cannot compete.
So, what does such a coward do?
He claims that all are equally weak, admitting his own feebleness, because nobody is omnipotent.
Ergo, his own feebleness is universal, and though he is weak and a coward, he admits to it, but also claims others do not admit it because they are feeble cowards.
Such a demented feminine mind will then avoid testing his owns strength agaisnt that of others, claiming that unless someone proves that he is omnipotent then he must admit that he is weak.. The feeble coward is now implying that he is brave and strong because he can admit his own feebleness and cowardice, whereas they are weak because they cannot admit their weakness.

He's inverted the evidence to one of absolutist linguistic games - the kind females and children play.

We can use the same "feminine methodology" using any concept....if not strength and power then genius and knowledge.
The absolute is not omniscience.
Now, the Desperate degenerate is not only a feeble coward but also an imbecile who knows he is an idiot and that he cannot defend the ideologies he needs to remain alive; he knows he will be exposed as the moron that he is even if he were to try.
So, he adopts a ruse...which someone else taught him....because he's too retarded to even come up with such a clever scheme.
He adopts the formula someone trained him to sue defensively.
He admits that he is a moron....and that his beliefs are self-serving....but that's not the end. He claims that everyone is equally so. Unless they can prove they are omniscient then he can declare himself clever and honest enough to admit what no other can...which can only be that all are equally ignorant and believe in ideologies that are self-serving.

His shame is now inverted into pride....his feebleness into strength....his cowardice into bravery....his duplicity into honesty.....and his ignorance and idiocy is now genius.
And he does it all by using the absent absolute....and a load of self-deceptive word-games.
This is post-modernism in the trenches - as it is practices by the layman, the average degenerate on the streets.

For an insight into how post-modernists speak from both sides of their mouths jump to 5:44:00 in the above [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

All surfaces with no substance.
Post-modernity and its advocates want to reduce all to superficiality.
Nothing matters. Appearances mean nothing. Words are meaningless other than their communicative psychological utility.
Value is a central theme in Marxism and Capitalism.
Baudrillard adopts it to expose its vacuity.
Money with no intrinsic value - fiat currency. Brands with no value other than the one ascribed to them by popularity.

Nihilism culminates in post-modernity...which i simply call modernity - not to be confused for Modernism.
Modernity is the final end - the last man. There is no no past, only perpetual future. The most current.

Brand appeal.
How does the symbol - the packaging the semiology of the product on the market - make you feel?
Popularity replaces quality with quantity - popularity gives the product its value on the market.
It does not matter what it is or how useful it is....or its quality of workmanship, materials durability.....etc.
All that matter sis its popularity- Supply/Demand.

When Jaguar reduced its prices its sales dropped.
It took a French - I believe - marketing guru to tell them to raise the prices to recover their lost sales.
The appeal of a product few can posses but all desire, reflecting the buyer's own "quality".
If all can own it, it loses its desirability....like a cheap whore's love.
It's all about building a brand....like Trump. He's selling himself as a brand name.
He doesn't give a shit about ideals, races democracy. All he cares about is himself as a brand-name.
If he actually believed in something he would never have been permitted to become president.