Posted on 11/28/2001 4:13:52 AM PST by shrinkermd
Interestingly enough, this is precisely what C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer argued against, both trying to encourage an evangelism which first met its "prospects" on their own turf and teaching that the only way to introduce Christianity in the post-modern world was through the backdoor, so to speak.
From the point of view of bringing new adherants to the faith, I think they were "right on". Unfortunately, I also think it helped to advance the cause of the deconstructionists, even if inadvertantly.
Yeah, tell me about it. :)
IMHO the issue is not "what makes something true." Something is either true or it isn't.
With few exceptions (e.g., statements such as: "I promise"), what I SAY has little or no bearing on what is true. It doesn't matter what I CALL something; it is true or false independent of what I think or say.
The issue is how we try to ascertain what is true (epistemology).
On that I tend to follow the "fallibilism" articulated by Sir Karl Popper. Only by recognizing our limits and rejecting what is provably false, can we accumulate useful knowledge.
What really angers me is when "word-play" (a la Newspeak) and "word magic" (a la Marx) is used to give the illusion of proof and evidence.
Deconstructionism is a good example.
"The truth is that there is no truth!"
"There is no reality, and I can demonstrate it!"
"Proof of anything is impossible, and I can prove it!"
This may seem to be a trivial distinction, but I think not. The government may decide what is TAUGHT as "historical truth," but it doesn's decide what is true.
"The truth is out there," and if the government, or anyone else, lies about it, there is the POTENTIAL (through hard work and research) to find what is true and expose what is a lie.
"There is no reality, and I can demonstrate it!"
"Proof of anything is impossible, and I can prove it!"
Reminds me of the Socratic paradox in the Theatetus: "In obtaining an account for right opinion, what would that be? . . . already having a right opinion of how things differ we are ordered to get a right opinion . . . To bid us to obtain what we already have in order to learn what we have opined pretty much resembles being blind." 209d-e.
One useful tool was purchasing A Glossary of Literary Terms by M. H. Abrams. This book was a must as it has "brief" philosophical explanations about how and why writers broke away from what was considered "normal" syntax or the "normal" story line. If this subject interests you, I would recommend its purchase.
The precursor to modernism and post-modernism, as well as deconstruction as you noted above, was Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and James G. Frazer. According to Abrams, modernism "involves a deliberate and radical break with some of the traditional bases not only of Western art, but of Western culture in general. Important intellectual precursors of modernism . . . are thinkers who had questioned the certainties that had supported traditional modes of social organization, religion, and morality, and also traditional ways of conceiving the human self." Through all this different questioning, these writers play with their readers' minds, forcing them to rethink their realities, beliefs, etc. They trick their readers by breaking with the "established literary" rules, inverting syntax, creating flashbacks within the novel, building a story where "no story should exist," if written according to what was traditionally expected. By doing this, they cause their readers to question what is the "right way to write, the right way to think."
Writers of fiction, such as Camus, seek to explain the "why's" of their existence. He and Sartre were well-known existentialists during their time and questioned the existence of God or of a God who involved Himself with us. Sartre believed neither in God's involvement nor God. They wrote during World War II and the Algerian/French war. There are others who questioned those in authority, such as in Robert Heller's (Catch 22), who made the military authority and rules seem absurd. That particular novel was written during the second World War, as well. Later on, we had individuals like Kurt Vonnegut, who excelled in satire and questioned man's place and role in the universe. Some believe his novels show all man's actions are predetermined, others dispute this and say his novels show he believes man has a free will.
Noah Chomsky researched language acquisition and its effects on the brain. He did some interesting studies on this and how the language that is learned literally effects how we think. I didn't agree with all his conclusions, but was interested in some of his studies. He, too, is quite a liberal who was admired by several of my English and psychology professors.
I recall a particular professor who encouraged "questioning authority." When I did this once with him after I graduated while enjoying libations at the local "pub," he got so steamed he left. I guess he didn't really mean for me to question his authority. He he.
I remember reading The Mirror and the Lamp
Enjoyed reading your post.
This is so on the mark that its funny. Did you ever notice how deconstrution always gets down to motivations like: homophobia, masogyny, rascism, etc.? I have yet to see someone deconstruct something down to "leftist agenda". Deconstruction is "bunk". (You can quote me on that)
Here are some other thoughts. For one, Foucault was a fraud and entertained alot of un-serious people who had alot of time one their hands. Secondly, its no suprise that so many lefists like Nietzsche because he attacks the Christians, promotes nihilism, and says we can make up our own system of morals and ethical values. Contrary to what the left says, this led to the horrifying decades of killing in the 20th century.
You are exactly right that Nietzsche and Marx are 2 birds of a feather leading to all of the destruction of the 20th century. Hell, Nietzsche and Marx paved the way for both world wars and the atrocities committed by governments against their own citizens. But don't try getting a leftist professor to admit this. They will still claim that both were "misunderstood" or they had "good intentions". The left is captivated by "The Will to Power" but the right eschews it.
Its no wonder President Bush mentioned this in his Address to the Nation on September 20th:
We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.
Thanks. Sometimes when you learn stuff in college you think, "now what good will this do me?" But it's kind of fun to know a little about what people are discussing and feel I can add a tad.
|
It is unclear whether clinton latched onto deconstructionist theory because its intrinsic inability to be critical provided convenient cover for clinton's inability to think critically or whether clinton was attracted to deconstruction merely because it had supplanted Marxism as the preferred opiate of leftist elites.
|
Bill Klinton after hearing a recording of himself from question through answer, "That's not what I said."
The Obammunist has done the same thing.
yitbos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.