He's also got either a tu quoque fallacy or a major equivocation in there. His leading argument seems to be:
1. The postmodern man denies/denounces everything.
2. To deny/denounce, you need morality.
3. The postmodern man denies/denounces morality.
4. Thus, the postmodern man is (insert negative descriptor here).
What he's doing is either saying:
1) if you deny morality, you aren't allowed to act as though morality exists; or
2) acknowledging that postmodern men deny absolute morality, but then twisting this to imply a rejection of subjective (that is, personal or societal morality); or
3) most likely both.
1. The postmodern man denies/denounces everything.
2. To deny/denounce, you need morality.
3. The postmodern man denies/denounces morality.
4. Thus, the postmodern man is (insert negative descriptor here).
What he's doing is either saying:
1) if you deny morality, you aren't allowed to act as though morality exists; or
2) acknowledging that postmodern men deny absolute morality, but then twisting this to imply a rejection of subjective (that is, personal or societal morality); or
3) most likely both.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.