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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Ave Crux, Spes Unica! This is the Congregation of Holy Cross motto and means, "Hail the Cross, our only hope."
So why this blog? Well, those of us who are teachers and learners know that the great ideas we encounter together sometimes are just more than one classroom discussion can handle, so this is a place to continue the search for truth and meaning.
About Me
- MIKE GRIFFIN
- Catherine and Mike Griffin are the proud parents of Benedict John and his little sibling on the way.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(41)
-
▼
April
(12)
- Indiana set to execute David Woods
- Preparing for Final, Part One
- Final: Phil 102
- Ethics and the Environment
- Run for Hope!
- Abortion and BP Networks
- Mourning
- Don Imus, Duke, and History
- Mr. Griffin (with comments by Luke Bruner)
- Mr. Bruner's Take (with Comments by Mr. Griffin) ...
- IS CHRISTIANITY COMPATIBLE WITH A POSTMODERN PERSP...
- Objective Truth
-
▼
April
(12)
22 comments:
Angela says:One does not need to belong specifically to a community group to stand up for something. At times one may be called upon to be the leader, or the pioneer, or inventor, etc...or, there may not be anyone in your area to join up with...
Postmodernism sounds like a way to issolate everyone into separate groups and tells them to keep to themselves becuase convinceing another group their wrong. I agree with the later: if someone is devout to their group's beliefs, then all the arguing in the world will not help in convincing. This postmodernism stuff is a bit more difficult to grasp than any of the other ethical views because of its vague definition.
Post modernism is one of those things that sounds ok on paper, but in reality is sub par. The idea of postmodernism just doesn't work becuase it has the idea of the right thing for a person has to do with the way that person was brought up. Post modernism was one of those hard things to understand becuase the dfinition only gives the basis of what it is actually meant for.
I contend that postmodernism isn't complicated on paper, but it is practical in reality. The reality is everyone is brought up a different way because everyone is brought up in a different culture. The definition aims to keep the different cultures from crossing paths in a negative way, so the definition really isn’t that vague.
For example, it is practical for Christians to believe that Jesus has come, while the same is true for the Jewish faith that continues to wait for their messiah. It is not practical for the two to violently attack the opposing opinion. Postmodernism makes the assertion that both religions are correct, as long as they follow their beliefs. This would definitely work in reality and not just on paper.
Kenneson argues that truth is “inseparably bound up with human language.” He continues that these truths are “irreducibly social.” Thus he creates a situation in which the truth of God’s existence is directly linked to the society. Would not this argument lead to God’s existence being relative to the society?
I am having trouble accepting the postmodernist argument that there is no objective truth. If we assume that all existence is subjective, then we create a world that exists only for the individual. There can be no universal truths; because what is true is subjective, thus it can not be applied to all people. All people are accordingly equally right and at the same time equally wrong. This “equality of correctness/ wrongness” is directly contradictory to human nature.
I would like a try at proving that Catholics can justify being postmodernists.
Our goal in life, at least as Catholics, is to be accepted into heaven. But this is not our only call. We are one sibling in a world of our brothers and sisters. Are we not our brother's and sister's keeper? If this is true then it is also our calling to help others into heaven. That doesn't however mean that we don't have any help. I also believe God calls Christians and non-Christians to join him in heaven.
As far as postmodernism is concerned, we need to look at it not as an contraditory philosophy but maybe as a catalyst to acheive our goals. Should we not completely give our entire self to the teachings of our religion? Should we not submerge entirely into our faith? Aren't we taught not to judge but to be the best Christian examples we can be? None of these Christian ideals conflict with the docrine of postmodernism. In fact, I think Christians can learn something from the postmodernists. Postmodernists say that people should make their decision based on how a formation group forms its followers. Since God is calling people to him in the first place, our job is to focus on forming ourselves, through our faith. People who are called anyway will see exactly what kind of people we are forming and find God's call irresistable. This way of choosing a formation group is also totally acceptable to postmodernists. If we could adopt the principlas I talked about and ignore the principal of no universal truths, then more people would be drawn to faith.
Just want to say, GREAT POSTS. We'll talk in class, but y'all aresaying the same thignsthat the Bigtime Philosophers are saying, both positive and negative.
Pace e bene
Griff
I am torn and not sure what to think about postmodernism. On the one hand If you look at differences with a postmodern eye you see the truth that understanding and respect are the tools for solving conflicts. But on the other hand postmdernism itself seems to imply that the entirety of human kind will never have a "common language" with which to acquire respect for and understanding of systems other than their own. In the end postmodernism seems pretty pessimistic.
I think postmodernism is perfect and possiblely one best ideas i have ever heard. It is true, one person cannot change the world but we can have an effect on it. Also, it is impossible for some to be objective because they will always have thier own biases, one must admit they have a subjective point of view and be open to others ideas to have a better understanding of thier own. A perfect example for me is our classes on going debate about peace and war, specifally the war in iraq. If i looked at my argument from Professor Griffin's point of view, my argument could be considered a little hypocritical. If the US is at war innocent people are going to die, it cant be help, also if use the "strength in numbers" arguemnt and send more troop, we are just gonna kill more people untill the insurgencies give up. Finally, postmodernism is in no way an isolated way of thinking or living. The blog talked about our formation system, "All of the various cultural choices we have, music, products, schools, circles of friends" we or me atleast, surround myself with people who will have a positive influence on my life. This does not mean that i do not socialize outside my group or only listen to a certian genre of music, i strive to have diversity to have connections with other groups. I feel that this is what postmodernism is all about.
I believe postmodernism would be great if it was fit into Aristotle's system of morality because there is some objective truth about morality. Your community/people you hang around can fill in the gaps that Aristotle leaves up to each person. So in that respect I think postmodernism is good but as a system that stands by itself I do not find it very effective.
I have to admit that i do not completely understand postmodernism but i agree with Dylan that postmodernism just puts people in groups and that group puts them in a category that they might not completely fit into, and that if we debate about it, we will get no where because of the different groups strong beliefs.
One of the many things that caught my eye when I read about postmodernism was how nobody, regardless of who they are, can be objective to everything. I strongly agree with this because I have always said that everyone, even people who say they do not judge, will be biased in some way. In every situation humans will analyze it and make assumptions, this is just how we operate. Not enough people understand that we need to look at everything around us, and realize that everything we do affects the world around us in some way. Postmodernism also tells you in order for you to truly believe in something, you have to question it in its entirety.
I believe that postmdernism can work. Everyone has there own personal beliefs, and honestly who are they to say that there belief is any more important than another persons. America is filled with this concept, we have many citizens that come from different countries, speak different languages, and believe in different religions. We are able to manage in our society for the most part without other people imposing their beliefs on other citizens.
When looking at post modernism, skin deep it seems like it promotes sticking to ones community, although when looking deeper it promotes the concept of "stepping in someone else's shoes'", before making an argument about "what is better/worse". So to me, it reminds me of the discussion of vegetarinism, or athiesism. It is just as hard to explain why they are wrong, as they are right when you have never lived those lives.
Although, it seems or post modernism to be an effective method of philosophy it requires the "user" to be well versed in many cultures. Because of this many will become poor, jaded, or biased philosophers. Not to mention it requires someone to accept a culture, in theory, and that is quite uncomfortable for many.
Therefore, it is useful, but only to those that are already well versed in other cultures.
(please disregard previous post, it had some typos that I have corrected.)
When looking at post modernism, skin deep it seems like it promotes sticking to ones community, although when looking deeper it promotes the concept of "stepping in someone else's shoes'", before making an argument about "what is better/worse". So to me, it reminds me of the discussion of vegetarianism, or atheism. It is just as hard to explain why they are wrong, as they are right when you have never lived those lives.
Although, it seems or post modernism to be an effective method of philosophy it requires the "user" to be well versed in many cultures. Because of this many will become poor, jaded, or biased philosophers. Not to mention it requires someone to accept a culture, in theory, and that is quite uncomfortable for many.
Therefore, it is useful, but only to those that are already well versed in other cultures.
Ok, so I am still kind of not getting this postmodernism thing, but going along with our discussion that we had on Monday on vegetarianism; The video we watched was completely insane. Those people have no right to what they did to those animals. I have never even heard of such a thing. I guess I have never heard of it because we slaughter our animals the correct and moral way. Those slaughter houses are the ones who send their meat to mcdonalds and burger king. When they said they mutilate the pigs ears, what they really mean is that they ear notch the pigs for identification reasons to seperate the pigs. Atleast thats what we do, I don't know what they were doing in the movie, those guys in the slaughter house were mentally insane or something. When we had hundreds of pigs back in the day, I had to help castrate the pigs (gross I know)The reason we did it is so we could have feeder pigs so that we could sell for pork and for people to eat.
Now going along with the chicken thing, my sister, brother and I use to always take our chickens to the slaughter house. We actually saw our chickens getting slaughterd. No, they were not cooped up like they showed in the video, right away the man would put the chickens in this tube thing where they would hang upside down and the guy would just go down the row with a butcher kife and cut their heads off one by one. You could say thats better than dying a slow painful death with your bones breaking and being cooped up for a long time.
There was this one time we had a "killer rooster." Everytime we went into the barnyard, that dang thing would come after you like a dinosaur or something, it crazy. It actually got a hold of one my brothers and almost pecked his eyes out. So my dad had to hit it over the head with a shovel. I mean this kind of sound inmoral but that rooster was crazy.
Anyways there is no way that I would ever become a vegetarian. Growing up on a farm and being a farmer's daughter, my dad would probably disown me if I became a vegitarian. I love the steak, chicken, bacon, all that good stuff, all of this with a big glass of chocolate milk.
In postmdernism, a person belongs to a specific group or collection of groups that promote a certain and prescribed set of values. If i were a postmodern, I would not say vegetarianism is wrong, I would simply show that eating meat is natural, humane, and healthy- through these actions I would attempt to demonsrate that my way is 'better'. The tough part of postmodernism is that we need the discipline and vision to allign oursleves with noble and virtuous formation systems which challenge us to become better human beings. By becomeing better, we show that our formation system and the people it produces are more virtuous and would hope that others would in turn emulate it.
im starting to understand what is exactly going on with this postmodernism. i believe that postmodernism is when a person believes in a specific thing such as a group and that have a certain value to them. but really once you think about it that way, we all are postmodernists in someways. we all believe in something.
I agree with Postmodernism and its views. I think it is the strongest of all the ethical systems we have learned about so far. I may even be a Postmodern, I'm not sure yet. Commenting on the video, did anybody else think it was a complete joke? I believe PETA made themselves look like complete idiots by the way they produced that video. Sitting there just watching the movie, you can clearly see how biased they are being. Even the narrator, Alec Baldwin, adds to the stupidity. He said some really dumb lines like, "If you drink milk, you are supporting the slaughter of baby calves." What a bias! Also, they only showed extreme cases of abuse. Katie commented that she has never seen most of that stuff happen. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but the average American farmer isn't doing it. I have a suggestion for PETA. Make a respectable video that viewers can actually take serious. Do not just present extreme cases. Present both sides of the story. This will make your argument a lot more agreeable and you will probably win over more people's minds.
I think i was getting the flow of postmodernism, but I really like this concept of "formation systems." This appears to me as the ulitmate circle of friends. The commnunity that you are within believing in the same concept and not forcing it upon somebody, but instead showing action and practical purposes to show its "truth." Opposed to deontology, which we know i just love, this philosophical tool is useful becuase in order for it to work you have to get off you butt and do something. Im just a little bit confused on what constitutes truth? I know it has to be morally good and supported by a community, but what about crazy religious cults? On a good note, im swaying towards buying on postmodernism even though your not suppose to sway.
CARL: I don't get all this eyeball stuff. Uh, what are they supposed to represent? Uh, eyeballs?
MOE: It's po-mo! [blank stares from all] Post-modern! [more staring] Yeah, all right -- weird for the sake of weird.
I was just thinking about this and it seems existentialism and postmodernism are very closely related. Existientialsm says that truth is subjective and one must create their own meaning in their life. While posternmodernism makes good points on how we should have communities, I feel existentialism is still the best philosophy we have on what it means to be human and how to live in the world
Post a Comment