... 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.
17 comments:
Angela says, Christ would have died even for only one person's salvation. ps. by the way, for you other students in my class, if there is ever a time I would like to relate how I was very good friends with a priest who was exiled in Siberia for the Faith for 3 years, my friend and myself had the honor and privelege to ccok for this sufferer for the faith who saw his bishop murdered before his eyes and had to walk by the dead bodies of his comrades for 3 long years. Who eventually did excape...I also know of another person from my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan...
10. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7. Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have wined to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% WINURE was simply the will of God.
1. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
This will probably get Deleted, but it is truth.
To Andy: who is this referring to?
The only valid points about Christianity would be 10 and 8. These also can be explained be a good practicing Christian though. I have thought some of the crazy practices which certain religions practice but as long as it helps people become good people who help society then I don't see a problem with what they believe in. Every religion has its extremist group.
Andy,
With all due respect, there are far better arguments against Christianity than those 10. E-mail me and we can chat about them (LBruner on the HCC server).
List is top 10 ways to tell if you are a fundamentalist Christian, but pretty much every Christian I know has at least 3 or 4 of these.
Name the ones your professor has....
Mr. Griffin, I found an interesting quote from Nietzsche. In The Gay Science he remarks
" Anyone who still judges "in this case everybody would have to act like this" has not yet taken five steps toward self-knowledge: otherwise he would know that there neither are nor can be actions that are the same,—that every action that has ever been done was done in an altogether unique and irretrievable way, and that this will be true of every future action,—that all regulations about actions relate only to their coarse exterior (and even the most inward and subtle regulations of all moralities so far),—that these regulations may lead to some semblance of sameness, but really only to some semblance,—that as one contemplates or looks back upon any action at all, it is and remains impenetrable,—that our opinions about "good," "noble," "great" can never be proved true by our actions because every action is unknowable,—that our opinions, valuations, and tables of what is good certainly belong among the most powerful levers in the involved mechanism of our actions, but that in any particular case the law of their mechanism is indemonstrable."
This seems to me to be the classic postmodern argument. We can posses no knowledge of universal morality, because what we know it only based on our flawed perceptions of the world around us. I am particularly struck by the statement that “every action is unknowable.” I think you would support the statement that we, as cognitive beings, can possess knowledge about an action, and can judge the consequences of such actions to be universally wrong. I am having a hard time understanding why objective thought is wrong. Can you, or someone else, explain what makes morality subjective to the postmodernist, to either the individual or culture?
I wasn't calling anyone out, i was just posting an interesting and thought provoking list I found. I don't think any of these fit you griff, you are not a fundamentalist Christian.
To Eric: This is going to be hard to explain, but postmodernists believe morality is completely subjective because people are raised different ways and therefore have different views on how to act in different situations. Everybody is biased towards the things they believe are moral and there is no one who can objectively say what is right for everyone and what is wrong for everyone. Therefore the Postmodernist believe one should subscribe to a community which has most of the same views the individual has and live according to that communities values. The postmodernism that Mr. Griffin has explained to us in class though has an overall objective quality because he explained that the community the individual goes into must have people that achieve "happiness" according to Aristotle. In the board definition of postmodernism though I'm pretty sure it does not matter what your community believes. That Nietzsche quote describes this perfectly because he is saying every individual was raised differently, have different experiences and have different opinions so no action has ever been the same because every person is different in performing an action. Hopes this clears things up.
Yes, Robert is right on. Nietzche fits well with extreme postmodernism; he is a sort of precursor to it, postmodern before that was even a word.
But you are right, Eric, that when I read Nietzche there I do not find that I agree. Every action is unknowable. If we mean full, total knowledge, then yes he is right. And at the time he was writing, many were praising REASON and SCIENCE as ways to objectively KNOW and FIGURE OUT the world, even the moral world. They failed, and Nietzche helped point that out. And today, postmoderns of all stripes agree on that: making SCIENCE and REASON into the objective standard of all, the final Supreme Court of the world, well that failed bigtime and never could have worked anyway.
But having said that, I think we can set out general rules for the moral life. Yes, some actions or some cases may always press the rule for an exception, but we can generally set some rules for what reaches virtue andwhat doesn't.
Now, here also is where I have postmodern tendencies... I think the above rules are best set within communities. Yes, some rules can be agreed on by all cultures: rape is wrong, murder is bad. But beyond that I do not think we will agree as a world.
But communities can set rules, or rather communities naturally hand on traditions--BELIEFS AND PRACTICES that reflect their WORLDVIEW. And this is where I think philosophy and ethics are at their best: in figuring out what beliefs and practices hold particular commmunities together. What is the "logic" that joins their network or web of various traditions?
Often in our world today, we belong to competing groups, and have to make tough choices about which worldview we will follow. Maybe I overstate that, maybe we can pick and choose from different traditions to an extent, but many postmoderns warn against such hovering and lack of committment, they say it leads to more confusion and loneliness than anything else.
I do also agree with robert. I beleive post modernism is interesting because it is very subjective. In post modernism there is no objective right or wrong. But i beleive that our sense of what is right or wrong is built completely by our commuity. Therefore, although everything is defind as right by a community, but the the people of these communities have are plainly warped by from the sort of community they are being brought up in. I think if some of us were brought up with different religous backrounds we have have a much different feeling about what is right and wrong.
ok.. so my take on postmodernism with me being Catholic, I would completely agree with the idea that I would not put bullets in that man either, even if it was "for the greater good," it is still wrong (to me).. And it is wrong to me because of my community and how I have been raised and so on, being a Church-goer and such.. This is why my deciding factor is not just a factor of reason, because as was mentioned in a part of the reading, it might go against my code of ethics which would reflect my that of my community.. example, abortion, wrong no exceptions.. hopefully I didn't get off track, I'm tired, all I can say. The End.
Griff, you have number 2 and maybe number 10
The list that Andy put up is definitely thought provoking (and kind of funny). Many Christians are not like anything on the list, bu the sad part it that there are those crazy fundamentalists that would score a perfect ten on the list. It is kind of sad that the message of Christ has been blurred by the pracices of these few.
I think that andy's comment showed that there are people out there like that. people do believe that what they believe is the only right, and everyone is wrong. i do know one of these people and they are so hard to get along with. its not that i don't believe what she does, it is that she doesn't believe what i believe...it kind of sucks....oh well...it happens. so i think that andy is kind of right in a way.
Postmodernism is a way of looking at the world that helps us to make sense of it and grapple with some of life's complex questions. I choose to belong to a group of people, Catholics, who share a common story. Postmodernism would say that I show, through the people and virtues my Catholic system produces, that it is 'better'. It all boils down to choice: we have to choose a formation system that fosters virtues and leads to true Aristotalian Eudaimonia. As a Catholic I believe Jesus founded a formation system that leads to this goal and I am prepared to show this through my actions and the people my system produces.
I know this blog or that matter this post is about the response to luke's post. But I have to tell you I was caught off gaurd by the cartoon, and even more caught off guard bu your (griff's) response. Maybe im completely comfused, but wouldnt checking provoke violence. I thought you were a passivist? I could be wrong. Im sorry if i made that assumption if its incorrect. The point is, I find that cartoon to be somewhat on the money. Somebody brought this up in class and you defended it, but I guess I didnt buy it or didnt understand it. But in postmodernism you could identify most things as truth if you and your community believed in them. Lets be honest how harmful is standing on someone's neck compared to a body check. The guy in the cartoon isnt killing anyone is he? I dont know, im still new to this. But I think the arguement can be fully supported both ways. But hey if your biased than your set right? I think.
Post a Comment