Postmodernism aka the vehicle driving the “my truth” movement in a vacuum. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with anyone’s truth. The problem lies in when people lend too much weight to their versions. So let’s discuss some arguments against postmodernism
Postmodernists overvalue subjectivity. Their own truth refutes everything and nothing simultaneously; in other words, it’s something that can’t be proven. Moreover, the subjective relies on it’s own unprovability. To be clear, it would be more appropriate to have postmodernism as it’s own field. Instead, it’s a murky lake of different philosophies.
Genuine debate requires a level playing field. All in all, nobody gets to win automatically. That’s not how the world works. Now, most people don’t intentionally rig the game, but the fix’s subtleties still occur. Hopefully, I don’t need to explain why playing in a rigged game is wrong on so many levels
I can’t write out how many ways deceit is wrong. Instead, I will explain how entertaining personal charades are wrong on one level. The level where winning matters. I don’t care if the postmodernists of the world want to give everyone a trophy or nobody a trophy as long as there is some reward.
I say keep the trophy because postmodernist thought doesn’t let anyone win. Unless you become a sports mega-star. The postmodernist idea does let mega-stars win. However, postmodernists don’t let anyone else win. In effect, people are winning through others.
Postmodernism means winning turns into hurting everyone’s feelings. More importantly, it means specific feelings are more important than the truth. And the truth is the whole point here. If we can’t see the truth in winning, then we can’t see the truth in anything.
Be as postmodernist as you want, as long as you leave room for objectivity. An argument cannot turn into a zero-sum game, because that would be a fallacy. Think about it. The net result of any competitive game cannot be zero. Scores in gaming can be even, and you can win or lose. However in no game exists where a player or team can score negative points.
That’s what a zero-sum game is. The only way the net result of a game is zero is with one side having negative points. That’s clearly a broken advantage that’s not going to work in public discourse.
Everyone needs to put their truths aside for the greater good. We need more meaning and choice in our lives. More importantly, by creating more room for objective truth, we make more room for our subjective reality. At least, in terms of value to influence public discourse.
We also must be cautious that we aren’t living through each other. Because that’s where postmodernism and the my truth movement will lead. If we merely absorb from each other then we are no longer making decisions.