Re: <nettime> Forget who owns the truth. Just talk about the weather.

[Christian Swertz via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

Dear Joseph,

Am 13.09.23 um 20:10 schrieb Joseph Rabie:
> I have doubts whether a group of academics in a given university forms 
> a sufficiently heterogenous sample for drawing general conclusions. 

I fully agree. The example does not justify any general conclusions for 
sure. And there are certainly people who feel a need in spiritual 
content for their lives. This also does not allow the general conclusion 
that all people are in need for some spirituality, religion or the like. 
So what should we do? As far as I see it's a good idea to let everybody 
take a personal decision. A perspective, that renders general arguments 
that are based on some sort of spirituality and include consequences for 
others useless. In short: Spirituality justifies nothing. In this 
respect, there is still some room for improvement in today's world, 
isn't it?
> I agree with you. The sociologist Maurice Halbwachs spoke of how different groups (professions, for example) constitute a particular “world”, which has its particular knowledge, complicity, habitus... and truths.
Interesting. I got the list of scientific, political, religious etc. 
truth spheres from Max Weber and connected it with the idea of different 
language cultures from Wilhelm von Humboldt. Didn't know that Halbwachs 
argued this too (only read his book on memory). Thank's for the hint! 
Can you give me a hint in which of his writings I can find it?
> In this way, the idea that there are subjective truths appears to not contradict the idea that a truth must necessarily be absolute and objective. I do hesitate, though, because some truths (in physics, for example) do equate to objective facts.
Can a truth be objective and subjective at the same time? Sounds like a 
contradiction, but I think it's possible. With physics as an example: In 
this case, the truth does equate to objective facts, but the meaning of 
"objective" does not include the claim that it will be true tomorrow. 
Even physicists changed their idea of truth occasionally. From an 
educational point of view, I would argue that the term "truth" might be 
considered as true today - but it needs to be passed on from older to 
younger people in time. And in this process, people might change the 
idea of truth.

> I disagree with this. What you write appears to compartmentalise, in 
> the way that academia compartmentalises disciplines. For me politics, 
> religion, art and all other things have everything to do with 
> everything, and a pluridisciplinary approach is essential. 

Indeed. A pluridisciplinary approach is a good idea as far as I see. And 
if all things have everything to to with everything, that's a 
monodisciplinary perspective. But that's challenging if you consider a 
pluridisciplinary perspective as relevant. I would really like to learn 
how you integrate a monodisciplinary and a pluridisciplinary perspective 
(same question as " Thus I wonder how you think true criticism and 
unified truth together?"). Can you give me a hint on that?

> Apart from that, I personally find the idea that the meaning of 
> existence lies in transmission of whatever kind profoundly nihilistic. 
> It corresponds to the evolutionary idea (that I have come across here 
> and there) that a species’s ultimate purpose is to assure its 
> perennity through reproduction. In other words, its meaning comes from 
> mothering the following generation, and beyond guaranteeing that, it 
> does not live for itself. And so on, all the way down the line. I find 
> this sort of utilitarianism profoundly depressing, the antithesis of 
> the spiritual need I believe exists in many of us. 

For some people, spirituality certainly works. I have to admit - I'm to 
lazy for it. I've learned that most spiritual ideas are connected with 
lots of regulations. Thinking, nutrition, partnership, and the like - 
all regulated. And since I've not grown up with the protestant ethic of 
hard work, that's to much for me. I thus decided to change my 
understanding of "depressing" instead. Solved the problem for me - maybe 
since I have no idea what "spiritual needs" might actually be. Never 
felt something like that. But others say they do. Personally, I enjoy 
this heterogeneity.

--
Liebe Grüße,

Christian Swertz
https://www.swertz.at

--
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org