So, here is a problem. Given what I have said in the previous two postings, how does one break the impasse? As I was writing this, I received a comment from Fr. Greg on my previous post in which he commented:
While “post modernism” is usually identified with a certain kind of “left wing” nihilism, much of its approach to things is now often echoed on the right, perhaps moreso these days than elsewhere:
But, he also pointed me to a blog in which the person comments:
I’m an honest doctor. I have chosen science over prejudice, health over disease, opportunity over slavery, and love and kindness over mean-minded make-believe.
There was a time when people were openly grateful to scientists and physicians who dedicated their lives to making us healthier and happier. There was a time when it was fashionable to express appreciation for the system of government and the practice of dispassionate inquiry which have brought us the unparalleled health, freedom, and prosperity which we enjoy today.
There was a time when people thought that a proposition was “valid” or “true” if, and only if, it ultimately squared with the observable world around us.
There was a time when people thought that respecting the beliefs and experiences of others, even when they differed from your own, was the mark of an educated, decent person.
There was a time when people thought it was right to judge each person by what he or she had done as an individual, rather than for their race, skin color, ancestry, religion, gender, sexual preference, or anything else.
There was a time when people enjoyed discovering how much we all have in common, and how most of us wanted the same things despite the superficial differences. There was even a time when we thought the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate was by means of reason, common sense, clear-thinking, and good-will.
We called this being scientific. We called this being rational. We called this being enlightened. W e called this being liberal.
We called this being modern.
I am concerned here only with the use of the word “postmodernism” as it usually gets used in rhetoric, not with its use in real epistemology.
Real postmodernism is a thoughtful study of the limits of scientific inquiry, the origins and perpetuation of unreasonable prejudices, and the ambiguities of language. Even though I am not a professional philosopher, I appreciate real postmodernism as far as I’m able to understand it.
By contrast…
The author goes on to pull various quotes around the net which show false or pseudo post-modernism being used to claim that you have your truth and I have my truth in a way that really makes it clear that there is no truth. More than that, there is an even more debased version of post-modernism in which the person claims to be the truly neutral person while everyone who disagrees only proves that they are infected with biases and a worldview that prevents them from seeing what is in front of their faces. Take that one step further and you get into the problem that some Christian lecture circuit stars had in the 1990’s in which they had what they called their “witnessing truths.” These really were exaggerations or outright constructs of their experience which did not match what had really happened. Take that even further, and you get what you see in today’s political campaigns in which a politician looks for ways to clip an opponent’s words in such a way that they are made to say the exact opposite of what they actually said. Supposedly it is not a lie because you are only playing your opponent’s words. Trust me, it is a lie!
The only way to break the casual/causal dilemma is for a return–not to unbridled modernism–but to at least a certain commitment to truth. No, I do not mean to simply say that what you speak is true. But rather, a certain commitment to a methodology in which what is true does “square with the observable world,” a certain commitment to learning which stops classifying it as an elite affair and considers it as a vital necessity, a certain commitment to a thoughtful dialogue which includes reading what other people have actually argued rather than trolling their writings and their words for snippets that can be used against them. And, finally, what every Christian is supposed to believe, that the ends do not justify the means, that is, that as tempting as it is to continue to use the methods of Satan in order to falsely defame and destroy your opponent, that you will stop using methods and be more concerned about what is true, what is pure, what is lovely, what is honorable, as Saint Paul counseled us.
Interesting Father!