Indiana set to execute David Woods

I learned today that next Friday the State of Indiana will execute David Woods. The Clemency Board just denied his plea. Barring the intevention of Governor Daniels or the U.S. Supreme Court, the state will kill him at midnight as next Thursday turns into Friday.

I plan to raise as much opposition to this as I can. I will lead an HCC caravan this Thursday night to the prayer vigil outside the prison, if this goes forward. People also can join by learning about his case and signing a petition at the Blog of "ND Against State Killing."
As a Catholic, I oppose all execution, but I also have visited for the last 8 years a man on Indiana's death row, have come to know him as a friend. And so I oppose with even more vigor state killing. No matter what someone has done, they are still someone's son, father, brother, friend. Violence never affects just one, as the victims' families can also attest.

Consider this letter yesterday to the Suth Bend Tribune:
May 4 execution first since bar association reported flaws
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE



The pending execution of Indiana death row inmate David Woods on May 4 is a milestone in the history of Indiana's death penalty.

Our nagging doubts and fears about the death penalty system being Indiana's "other lottery" have now been confirmed and thoroughly documented in a recent report by the American Bar Association. Out of this report rises an opportunity to show that Indiana will not stand by while a man is executed as a result of so flawed and suspect a system. Instead, we must show that Indiana stands for fairness and true justice by demanding a hold on executions until the ABA report's recommendations can be further examined and the death penalty system as a whole can be judged.

A moratorium is not only advisable, but is also overwhelmingly supported by 61 percent of Hoosiers as demonstrated in an ABA-commissioned poll. Once the ticking clock of impending executions is silenced, objective examination of this system will expose the inhumanity, inefficiency and injustice of capital punishment. I urge all who are concerned about ensuring the legitimacy of our justice system to petition their legislators and Gov. Mitch Daniels for a stay of Woods' execution and a moratorium on capital punishment.


Will McAuliffe
Co-director
Notre Dame Against State Killing
South Bend

That letters raises significant points. It is true that the family of the victim, Juan Placencia, has asked that clemency be denied and Woods be killed. The victim was the ex-husband of Woods' mother. He was the father of 11 and grandpa to 76 children. His daughter said this: "I have to pray that you deny clemency to David Leon Woods," said his daughter Catherine Placencia, 63, Garrett. "He is the one who did this to my father and our family."

It is clear that David Woods is a man who has not been hardened as a prisoner but has turned to the good, after a brutal childhood (he was abused and neglected) and, yes, his commission of a brutal murder. He admits to the murder and is remorseful.

Some will say he chose death by inflicting death when he was 19. But again, be wary of fuzzy philosophy. Primary moral responsibility for killing David Woods will rest with those who kill David Woods and those who issue the order to kill David Woods. We will look at this case on Monday, but as you all can see, the issues we discuss are not abstract. The state is planning to kill this man. That's real.

Preparing for Final, Part One

The 3 page final paper will ALSO be the basis for your persuasive speech that you give at the final. Again, the final 3 pager + speech can be on the topic of your choosing, but I will list some possibilities below just for extra ideas.

Note: if your final 3 pager and speech is on abortion, you can pick a different topic for your one pager due Monday.

So here are some topic possibilities:
HCC, ND and ROTC
Catholicism and the military oath
The Dilemma of the Public Square
Is there a natural law that is objectively knowable?
Being and American and Catholic
How can religious values be translate into secular values?
Is secularism a sort of religion?
What can philosophy say about the abortion debate?
Should abortion be legal
Are postmodern tools helpful or not in understanding issues?

Final: Phil 102

Apart from our recent discussions of various moral issues like war or abortion, here are some concepts from the first half of semester that you will need to know for short answer part of final:

-the meaning of Plato's allegory of the Cave
-Plato's view of the health of the soul (the 3 parts of the soul)
-the 4 pursuits of philosophy... the True, the Good, the Beautiful, the One
-the idea of the soul, the "I" which remains through all my physical changes
-the proofs for the existence of God
-subjectivism, conventionalism, objectivism
-Natural Law
-a priori vs. a posteriori
-Deontology
-Utilitarianism ("act" utilitarianism and "rule" utilitarianism)
-Virtue Ethics
-The Greek Virtues
-The Roman Virtues
-The Cardinal Virtues
-The Golden Mean
-Askesis
-Eudaimonia
-The Theological Virtues
-The 7 Deadly Vices (sins)
-The Sport Theory of Ethics
-The Garden Theory of Ethics
-The Tests of Virtue Ethics (Arete, Telos, Social and Fruits)

Ethics and the Environment

This post is mainly for my Theo 351 class, but it does raise larger issues about how truth and agreeement are reached even on a scientific issue. After watching this, do you agree that some industries could intentionally try to confuse and blur issues so that people continue to use a lot of gas and coal?


We know that global warming, or as folls now say, global climate change, is a big potical issue. But what about the ethics of it all? Do we have an obligation to cut down on our consumption? If so, do you see that happening? Are people, are YOU, more conscious about how much gas you use, about not littering, about how much energy you consume?

Run for Hope!

Now is the time to click and register for the Run for Hope this Saturday at 10am. You need to be sponsored (or just sponsor yourself)for at least $10. The proceeds will all go to the suffering people of the Darfur region of Sudan.

If any of my students can beat me, they will get the extra credit. But look out, I am fast! Okay, so sign up now for the Run for Hope by filling out the sheet at the link above and giving it to Mr. Nate Walker in V-157, next to financial aid office.

Abortion and BP Networks

Okay, here's what I want my Philo students to post on. As we have learned in class, one philosophical tool to help engage in moral discourse that is not interminable is to try to understand the web of beliefs and practices that make sense of a particular moral issue. For example, abortion is a very common practice, over a million a year. And many defend abortion to the nth degree. Why? What other B's and P's hold abortion in its place as something to be defended within certain worldviews. What values are being sought after, what other practices are related to it? So, to use our friendly molecular structure, what are the other elements of the paradigm that defends abortion? Think of beliefs as the connecting lines and practices as other atoms in the molecule.

Again, let me say an analysis like this that looks at B's and P's and history, language and culture is not the last step in the process of moral philosophy using postmodern tools. Rather it is the first. Once you understand someone's framework, you can show how this or that practice is or is not coherent with the values their framework attempts to uphold.

So first things first, let's be specific, let's name the beliefs and practices that situate a defense of abortion. Perhaps you think the BP network that justifies abortion is simply incoherent, lacking any structure. If so, say so. Perhaps your focus is on how social conditions give rise to abortion, perhaps on how feminism does, perhaps how a legal framework does. There are many angles from which to view this.

Mourning

Just a short post to give folks a chance to talk about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy. It seems that the media focus is on "who did this wrong" or "what different could have been done." All legitimate questions, but does anyone share with me the belief that one important thing to do at times like this is to really grieve, really mourn, really realize that we live in a broken world where evil exists. One reflection I had after the last class was how we all seem to react when the idea of evil, or the Devil, is introduced into discussions like this. As if we are all above that kind of silly talk. But maybe its not so silly: after all, does it really seem we are in charge in this world? Is it not a plausible philosophical conclusion that we are caught up in a cosmic battle between good and evil, a battle that includes us but also transcends us. Is that a plausible, coherent "narrative" to help explain our world? I think so. Share your thoughts on this or any aspect of the tragedy.

Don Imus, Duke, and History

Okay, rather than posting my own views, let me get the ball rolling with a commentary I heard on the radio from a writer named Steven Barnes. It is short and thoughtful. For a link to listen to it, click here. But the text itself is below. See what you think and post a reaction, giving what you think is his best point or where you think he is off base.

The last two weeks have been a particularly interesting time to be black. Presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $25 million.

Charges were dropped against the Duke University lacrosse team, and talk-show host Don Imus was fired from CBS and MSNBC for racially insulting the Rutgers women's basketball team.

These are odd times, in which 21st Century America struggles to find its social and political soul.

A century ago, Booker T. Washington and WEB Dubois debated whether financial power or social equality represented the best path to improved life for blacks in America.

I've heard Prosecutor Mike Nifong's terrible mistakes in the Duke rape case attributed to over-eagerness, perhaps an attempt to compensate for times when sexual violence against black women was underreported and unprosecuted. But even the best intentions would not excuse damaging three innocent college students.

But where Nifong's horrible mistake probably resulted from social pressure and programming, the Don Imus flap is incredibly revealing about the current state of black America, in a way that both Washington and Dubois would have appreciated.

Certainly Imus' words were in poor taste: Entertainers often balance on this thin edge. One could easily believe that black folks are simply being too sensitive, and there's a part of me that agrees with that. But only part.

Perhaps this is all a tempest in a teapot. Surely we've gone beyond all this terrible stuff. I agree. Race doesn't matter in America…it never has, as long as you're white.

It is normal for those with power to be oblivious to the ways they wield it, profit by it, and fight to keep it. In essence, they're like fish who cannot see the water, but get riled up when someone on shore drinks from a paper cup. I'm sure if the position were reversed, blacks would be just as oblivious, just as self-righteously irritated that whites "just can't take a joke." Pity we've never had that opportunity.

But what we do have is blacks situated on the executive boards of major media conglomerates, working in the law offices of CNN, making decisions at multi-billion dollar corporations.

The Imus storm might have died down if not fed by thousands of letters and e-mails, some orchestrated by the NAACP and other groups. But it was the withdrawal of advertising by General Motors, Procter and Gamble, and American Express (led by an African-American CEO, Kenneth Chenault ) that motivated both CBS and MSNBC to drop Imus. They had been hit squarely in the pocketbook, and it hurt.

Personally, I don't particularly think Imus is a racist. Real racists are rarely so forthright. But if he's a victim of the culture wars, his chastisement sends a message loud and clear: This stuff isn't funny. It never was.

For future reference: Men are not the arbiters of what women find insulting. Nor can straights make that decision for gays. Whites don't get to decide what is or is not insulting to blacks.

Partially because of DuBois, blacks sought and acquired the social equality necessary to pierce the corporate walls. But as Booker T. Washington might have predicted, it is financial pressure that forced a change, that drew a long overdue line in the sand. Two sides of a single social/political coin. They must be smiling.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Mr. Griffin (with comments by Luke Bruner)

I would like to begin with this cartoon, because it is a seering attack on postmodern philosophy and if I am to defend it I should begin with how opponents see its faults....

... If I came across this scene, I would:
-first tell the dude to lay off the poor guy;
-listen as he perhaps smart-mouths his justification as in the cartoon;
-lay into him with a body check reminiscent of my glory days on the ice. Actually I never checked that well, but I'd shove him nonetheless.

Now for the philosophical basis of my action and how it can square with a postmodern view...

First, I wonder what the anti-postmodern, the believer in objective reason, would do. Would he suppose he could "convince" the guy to see that he is part of a cruel philosophy that is intrinsically immoral? Perhaps, but probably not in the moment. And if that were so effective, why do murders and rapes continue to happen after all these years of human reason? Actually, this brings up another reverse mockery of those who would use this cartoon to say postmoderns would just let the poor guy stay on the ground. The cartoon mentions how postmoderns are so attentive to different "stories"... Well, what if the "story" here were that the guy on the ground was attacking a group of people, and someone was restraining him until all could escape. You see, this would yield a different conclusion. That's not relativism, since it could still issue a moral judgment if, for example, instead of restraining the man someone pumped him full of bullets. So there is room for moral judgment, but to claim it is "objective" is dubious.

... COMMENT BY MR. BRUNER: Pilate and Jesus had differing stories. When Jesus tried to explain the whole objective truth thing, Pilate had a surefire response for him: "Quid Est Veritas", "What is Truth?" Interesting contrast of positions. Objective Truth Vs. Post-Modernism. END OF COMMENT

And so why would I tackle him? Because I am a utilitarian? No. Ah, careful here. I do believe that the ends can justify the means. I just do not believe, as utilitarians do, that a good end or result ought to justify something that is against my code of ethics. And so what is against my code? Well, as a follower of Jesus who looks to the anicent traditions of the saints and martyrs as examples... I see nothing that prohibits tackling! Would I kill him? No, I would not. But tackling and killing are two quite different things.

The cartoon reminds me of how people talk about nonviolence. They make it seem as if it recommends just sitting back as evil goes on. I've heard it so often: "What would you do about Hitler, just sit back and do nothing?" "That, actually, is what America did about Hitler until Pearl Harbor," I usually say. And then I say that there were many, many things people like me (Catholics) could have done. One example is that they might not have thrown millions of bodies into furnaces. That would have helped. Another is that they might have had some guts and refused to persecute Jews. We are so used to thinking that violence is the most powerful force in our world. You would think the bloodshed of a century would show us otherwise; we persist in our illusion, probably because we just really are fascinated with violence.

But I am veering from my point. As for this situation, I really would try to tell the guy to stop. But then, for his own good too, I would move him. Not kill him. Move him. Then I might try to talk with him. But you know the only thing that might, might convince him... not my logic or rational debate skills, but rather my witness as the kind of guy who doesn't just let injustice go by. He might be intrigued by me. Maybe he would start wailing on me and break my jaw. I'd take it. Then he'd be even more intrigued.

... COMMENT BY MR. BRUNER: Yes, the importance of Christians living out their moral values cannot be understated. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" is the ancient saying: a great many Romans converted because they saw Christians bravely allowing themselves to be eaten by lions instead of renouncing their faith. "Faith without works is dead. END OF COMMENT

After the incident, yes, it would occur to me that this guy is not living in the same story that I am. To see how I can "judge" his story, see below. But I cannot on my own change his story; I can only share with him another one. But he may go out and do it again, yea, people might go out and murder and rape tonight. Alas, my rational debating skills cannot save the world.

The cartoon also represents another common stereotype of postmodernism. So let me say again: the word "postmoderm" is used best as an adjective and not a noun. There is no group or religion out there called Postmodernism. Rather, it is a way of thinking that people from all kinds of traditions (including Christian) use to help make sense of the world. What ties postmodern views together is 1) a skepticism about using Reason to achieve Objective Truth, along with 2) an emphasis on looking at communities as Formation Systems that aim to produce a particular kind of person.

... COMMENT BY MR. BRUNER: The biggest advantage of post-modernism is that it gives Christians something that we did not have under Modernity: a place at the table. Previously, our position was automatically dismissed and considered unworthy. Being "equally valid" is a big step upward. END OF COMMENT.

Thus a postmodern perspective puts emphasis on communities, understanding beliefs and practices as "true" to the extent that they are in Coherence with the tradition of the community.

Can a postmodern view judge between communities, between stories? I would say yes, but only: a) very cautiously, b) aware of our own bias and c) using the standard of what kind of people the system produces rather than pulling out an isolated action from that community's network of beliefs and practices.

On this most important question, of how to judge among competing stories or narratives, I want to use an exceprt from an AWESOME BOOK, by two postmodern Chirstians, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmat. The book takes its name from one of St. Paul's letters and it titled Colossians Remixed. Here is the part where they describe the standards for judging between stories (what they call "worldviews")....

Any worldview needs to:
1) be comprehensive in scope. Does it open up all of life, or are there serious blind spots?

2) be coherent. Does the vision of life hang together or is it at war with itself?

3) make the community members more senstive to justice and more open to the needs, cries and pain of others (they point out how so many of the great traditions share this trait)

4) be humble about its own claims and therefore open to correction. Recongizing the finite charcater of all human knowing should enatil a humility.

5) be able to generate practices that put into action the worldview. A worldview that does not take on flesh is merely theoretical.

Okay, so I think that was an interesting excerpt. Speaking of practices and taking on flesh, I must go now to one of the strange and radical practices of my coomunity:the Easter Vigil, when we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ, a reality for which I would lay down my life and one in which I only know because of the subjective and totally biased community of which I am a part. Tonight I will look upon some Holy Cross students being baptized in water, and I will see Christ in them. I will not see this with objective or rational eyes. Indeed, another set of eyes would just see a strange ritual. But the eyes in that Chapel will be the eyes of a subjective community which, for over two thousand years, has gathered on this night to look upon this sight.

... COMMENT BY MR. BRUNER: From the earliest days of Christianity it was taught that the sacred mysteries could only be understood from the inside. Thus, you were prepared for baptism, baptized, and then the meaning of the mysteries were given. The practice remains the same to this day. END OF COMMENT.

Mr. Bruner's Take (with Comments by Mr. Griffin) Postmodernism and a Blood Stained Cross

The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years ago reveals a great deal about both Christianity and PostModernism. If the records are to be trusted, Jesus died hanging from a cross on a large hill outside Jerusalem, around 3pm on a Friday afternoon. It goes without saying that crucifixion is not a pleasant way to die.

Let’s be quite clear, Jesus died alone and in agony. His final words are given variously as, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew And Mark), “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke), and alternatively “It is Finished” (John). For our purposes today we also take special notice of who was with Jesus when he died: almost nobody.

Only a few weeks before large crowds followed him, but when the going got tough the crowds got going. There were a few “die-hards” (no pun intended) who followed Jesus even to the Cross, but they can be counted on one hand.

PostModernity and Christianity share far more in common than either movement would like to admit. Firstly, both are religions. Secondly, most people that claim to believe their respective religion don’t really believe in it at all. Some may take issue with the first claim, namely, that PostModernity is a religion. However, consider these facts: It teaches a moral system, makes claims about God, makes claims about Truth, provides a worldview and most importantly—requires a great deal of faith.
...COMMENT By Mr. GRIFFIN: I just have to register an objection here, because I do not see postmodernism as a religion. Some may see it that way. I see it as a tool to help make sense of a crazy and confusing world. END COMMENT.

The last two need a bit more explaining. PostModernity advances its own criteria for judging all other worldviews, and so presents a worldview all its own. It may say to Christians, “Your truth is true for you, but not true for PostModernists, and you just don’t know it.” To which Christians would respond, “No, our truth is true for both us and for you, but you just don’t know it.”

What’s going on here? PostModernity is telling another worldview ‘what the opposing view really means, even against the objections of that opposing view.’ Most other religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) honestly admit they do this, and so they organize their worldview in a hierarchical way. With Islam, for instance: There is Islam, then other religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity), then religions that have revealed elements (Zoroastrianism, certain types of Hinduism, Buddhism) then the outright pagans and atheists. Thus, every opposing worldview can be understood in relation to one’s own worldview. The fancy way to sum all of that up is using the term “meta-narrative.”
...COMMENT By Mr. GRIFFIN: Yes, "meta-narrative" is the term used to describe how one sees the connection between their own group's narrative and all the other competing narratives. And yes, the meta-narrative of postmoderns is very reluctant to judge between them, mainly because this judging would be SO biased, so subjective, so un-un-objective. But for postmoderns, subjective is not a bad word! END COMMENT.

Postmodernity is very dishonest in this area. Hierarchical structures are very out of fashion right now in trendy circles, so it claims that all worldviews are equally valid since there are no objective truths. However, some worldviews are just a bit more equal and valid than others *wink wink, nudge nudge * In other words, the Christian worldview is as equally valid as the post-modern worldview... But the post-modern view is the "right way" to look at things anyways. This isn’t so much hierarchical as tyrannical; one is on top, with everybody else equally wrong.

The second of our premises, namely that Postmodernity requires a great deal of faith, also needs a bit of explaining.

Faith is that which a person cannot prove, but which one believes anyways. PostModernity’s central faith claim is as follows: Truth is not objective, there is no objective coherency, and nothing can be proven for certain. That statement cannot be verified by any means. In the greatest historical irony since Japan formed an alliance with Aryan-Supremacist Germany, if you could prove that faith statement true it would actually prove post-modernism false.

And so we return to our starting point: Jesus abandoned at Calvery. Such imagery carries with it a summary of both PostModernity and Christianity.

Very few persons who claim to be PostModernists really are PostModernists at all. Rather, they are followers of what is fashionable and ‘cool.’ When push comes to shove they will make absolute moral claims, declare other world views wrong, argue that there is a “better and worse” way to do something, judge other worldviews (even though PostModernity forbids objective judgment), and deny that they have faith at all in their own system. By their own criteria they are not really PostModernists.

The same can also be said for Christianity. The core Christian claim, “Jesus is Lord” is not really believed by most Christians, in large part because most Christians are watered down by PostModernism (his Lordship is ‘true for us’). His Resurrection from the dead becomes just ‘our story’, and hard teachings are simply ignored.
...COMMENT By Mr. GRIFFIN: I agree with much of this. At the end of the day moral judgments must be made, but postmoderns are just more likely to make them in humility and, no small matter, without seeking to enforce them with killing. END COMMENT.

It seems, then, that we have boxed ourselves into a corner. Neither belief system is ‘coherent’ in the sense that the vast majority of followers live it out as if it were true. An outsider cannot look at PostModernity and see it coherently lived out by its adherents, nor can they do so with Christianity.

But maybe there is a way out of this corner? Perhaps we ought to do the one thing that we fear most: take a good, hard, long look in the mirror. What do we actually see, and actually believe?
...COMMENT By Mr. GRIFFIN: Now I'm intrigued, and listening intently... END COMMENT

In our lives, and in the human condition, there has been and continues to be religious experience. For all the Christian bashing that goes on (and it does seem that Christians are the one group that it is okay to bash), one must admit that the disciples EXPERIENCED something on the first Easter Sunday. It was an experience so powerful that it radically changed each one of their lives. Through the centuries and into the present day Christians have claimed some sort of experience of Jesus as Lord.
...COMMENT By Mr. GRIFFIN: uh huh, that's right, go on. END COMMENT

Hindus, Native Americans, Muslims (and in a different sense, Buddhists) also all make similar claims: that religious experience is real and present in their lives. They may disagree on what the experience means, but the experience seems to really be there. Other experiences can point towards the existence of SOMETHING objective out there: the feeling of being in love, the sense that a person is not gone after their death, awe at the majesty of nature, and the list goes on and on.

All a true PostModernist can claim is that they have not yet had any religious experience. That is the same as saying “since I haven’t been to London, it must not exist.” Lacking experience does not mean there is no experience out there.
...COMMENT BY MR. GRIFFIN: I was with you, still am, but again must insist that postmoderns HAVE HAD such experiences, like I have for ex., and that's my point: it is the EXPERIENCE of religion, not abstract propositions, that grounds the truth and meaning of faith. So, you are right, and Jesus is not Lord because we agree to say he is. Rather, we experience the truth of his Lordship. It's truth can only be seen "from the inside of the life of his community, the Church." END COMMENT.

Though Christians make the most radical claim of any major religion (Jesus is Lord), all the major religions are making (to some degree) the same claim. The major religions are claiming that, through the experience of faith, a human being can interact with an Objective Reality that is radically different than our own. Furthermore, they all go on to claim that interacting with that Reality will change a person forever.

If Jesus is God (as Christians claim), then his life, death, and Resurrection are the most important events in the history of the universe. Here we are, trapped in a subjective reality that we can never break out of on our own… and Objective Reality Itself enters into our very existence so that we may be able to interact with that Reality. Humanity proceeded to reject that Objective Reality, but it responded by the Resurrection. That Resurrection showed what humans could become… living persons who participate directly with Objective Reality. Jesus shared in our humanity so that we may come to share in his Divinity.

When PostModernity says, “We can know nothing objectively” it uses the word ‘know’ in the sense of knowledge, like one knows the score to a football game. When Christianity says, “We can know Objectivity itself” it is used in a very different way, ‘know’ references a relationship, like one can know a friend or a spouse.
...COMMENT BY MR. GRIFFIN: I am with you on this all the way, our "knowing" refers to a relationship. In that sense, I am not inspired to know Mr. Objective Reality. I do want to known the Risen Jesus. END COMMENT.

It is my hope for each and every one of you that in this Easter Season you will come to experience faith and know the Risen Christ. To be a PostModernist is to deny your very humanity, because it assumes that you only know like a robot or a computer knows. But you are all humans who think, feel, experience, know others, and enter into relationship with friends and family. What does your heart tell you is true?

The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the sufferings of all humans, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and sufferings of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in our hearts. For ours is a community composed of all humanity. United in Christ, we are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of Our Father and we welcome the news of salvation, which is meant for all.

I remain,

Entirely Yours in Christ,
-Luke Bruner
Friday, April 6th, 2007
The Commemoration of Good Friday

IS CHRISTIANITY COMPATIBLE WITH A POSTMODERN PERSPECTIVE? WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?

OKAY, this post is simply for comments after reading the posts by Luke Bruner and me:

Objective Truth

Okay, the excerpt you received in class (article by Philip Kenneson) is meant to give a defense of how you can both believe in God and be postmodern.

Esentially his point is this: Truth is not something we reach by making certain propositions in the abstract, but rather Truth only emerges when concrete actions within a community make sense. In this sense, truth is relative. Now that usually gets an automatic jeer, but it is not relative in the sense that "anything goes."

Take our example in class: vegetarianism. Is this this practice morally correct? Well, if you are part of a community that has high respect for animals and the environment, then yes it is correct. In more popular culture it does not seem to have much moral weight to it, though.

So for the postmodern, the point is not to start arguing about the practice of vegetarianism, but rather what is interesting is to examine the Narrative and the Worldview that vegetarians hold as true. If you disagree with that, fine, but you ought not judge a group's actions by standards they do not even believe in.

Same with war. It's not that I think war is objectively wrong or immoral. Rather, it simply does not make sense within the worldview/"gospel" I have chosen. Sure it makes sense in other systems, where the practice of war "coheres with" or "jives with" the prevailing narrative. But for me, the prevailing narrative is the story of Jesus and those who follow. Thus if we were to be real specific about the ROTC question, it would be that I think ND is caught between two narratives, two worldviews, the Stories, and is trying to have it both ways.

Postmodernism is very critical of trying to have it both ways.

Finally, a key concept for postmodern philosophy is "FORMATION SYSTEM." All of the various cultural choices we have, music, products, schools, circles of friends" are all formation systems that help make us into a certain type of person. Thus the postmodern challenge is to choose well our formation systems. We can try to be just another cynic (we all know some)who hovers above culture and just says how stupid this group or that movement is, always saying why others are wrong. But the sad part here, acc. to the postmodern, is that these people a) believe they are objective when in fact they are as biased as anyone and moreover b) they never actually make a committment to a community which can offer real meaning. Because for a postmodern, who looks back on history and modern times, the big claim is that we find meaning not from some abstract search for Truth, nor do we get meaning from self-actualization and individual reliance on ourselves; rather we get meaning from being a part of a community, a community which has a story within which the story of our lives can make sense.

So, look again to the links I put below, the positive and negative ones, and then post a quick thought on postmodernism, helping to refine your thoughts for Wednesday.