I have been doing some research on the subject of post-modernism. In this post, you will find some of the conclusions I have come to. It should be noted that this is not 100% conclusive but I think it gives a good overview of a few points at least. In the future, I may update this post and add more to it as time permits.
Post-modernism endorses the ability for concepts to be in constant flux. It relies on the importance of concrete experience over abstract principles knowing that a person’s experience will be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal. There are no single thought priority systems, which should govern a person’s belief or investigation of facts. All knowledge should be continually subjected to direct testing because there are no definite terms, boundaries or truth. This idea states that truth is ambiguous and is subject to pluralism or more than one truth; therefore, is considered to be fallible rather than absolute or certain. This creates skepticism at any attempt to explain a valid truth for all groups, cultures, or races and instead focuses on relative truth. Relative truth significantly blurs the lines because what is true for you may not be true for me. Basically, this thought process uses one’s own understanding and interpretation to create reality. This “open mindedness” is really an indeterminate lack of any firm ground on a world view. This is readily seen in the disbelief in nationalism, or pride of one’s country, because they see it as building walls, making enemies and destroying nature. They believe capitalism creates a “have or have not society” which is not fair for the collective; as a result they tend to be more socialistic in nature. Religion is looked at as causing moral friction and division among people. It’s no surprise that most are atheistic in nature or agnostic.
“By replacing the modern worldview with multiplicity of views and worlds, the postmodern ear has in effect replaced knowledge with interpretation.” (Stanley Grenz)
Consequently, the pursuit for knowledge is endless and is constantly being revised; even after study there still are no absolutes. The world does not exist as a thing-in-its-self but rather comes into being through interpretation.
This theory makes the claim that “all human knowledge is mediated by signs and symbols of uncertain provenance, constituted by historically and culturally variable predispositions, and influenced by often unconscious human interest.” (Richard Tarnas- The passions of the Western Mind, 394-398)
Basically, Richard Tarnas is saying that all human knowledge is biased or has pluralism. What if I were to go outside and pick up a rock and I were to tell you that it was grey, course, extremely hard and virtually indestructible – would you come up with the same analysis? I would venture to say that your interpretation would be very similar to my own analysis. Are we then to say these facts can be considered truth? What if 100 people agreed with my analysis? Or what if conversely 100 people said that my rock was purple with yellow polka dots and soft? (haha I would first ask them what they smoking! Lol) But for the sake of argument, their interpretation is radically different from mine – what then? Aren’t there facts about what we know about rocks from past experience? If it were of a particular kind – say granite – then from history or scientific discovery we know this rock’s properties from a plethora of experience with rocks as a collective. Couldn’t we then say that these 100 people who claim my rock is soft and purple with yellow polka dots are wrong? Or do we say that everyone in history who said my rock was hard, course and virtually indestructible were all interpreting what a rock is from culture norms or unconscious human interest and are therefore essentially wrong! Wouldn’t that be ridiculous? I certainly think so – but in essence that is what post modernism claims – my rock based on interpretation could be soft and purple with yellow polka dots. What are the FACTS? What is the TRUTH??
(SIDE NOTE:: I wasn’t taking into account ALL of the possibilities in this analogy or this post would never end! I wanted to keep the facts simple)
“We do not have to describe a universe and then ask ourselves what our knowledge is like for such a universe to become possible. We must do the reverse. Given that there is knowledge, we have to inquire how things must be made in order to explain how we know them.” (Etienne Gilson)
Herein lies some of the fundamental problems with postmodernism; it can only be seen as an arbitrary social construction. It lacks any ground or support for rejecting other ideas or possibilities – everyone and everything certainly cannot ALL be right. It devalues the ability to build theories because if every attempt to associate truth is denied how can you possibly move forward? Also, this theory refutes its self by stating that there is no objective truth because it ends up teaching us that there is some objective truth – post-modernism is right or has some merit.
Thought provoking: Danger of Perspectival View of Truth:
“Recently, a panel of nineteen experts appointed by the National Institute of Health recommended that federal funding be used for producing and harvesting – and destroying – fetuses for laboratory experimentation. The panel’s reasoning is that ‘personhood’ is a “social construct" . Human beings, in other words, aren’t born, but defined. According to them, cultural consensus (not always popular, but that of the experts) defines reality. What happens, however, when culture decides a certain race or gender is non-human, and those non-humans are targeted for extinction? If reality is culture bound it would be an act of imperialism for another culture to intervene. Without an absolute standard, there is no basis for judging a Nazi or a misogynist (hater of women) any more than there is for defining a human life.” (Dennis McCallum)
No comments:
Post a Comment