Catholicism and Postmodernity

[The Joey-O]

I'm so confuzzled

[beatty07]

Morostheos, it probably looked like I was dissing your post since they ended up at the top of a new page...that wasn't my intention. I definitely agree that relativism is a huge danger among postmodern thinkers! I was responding to the combined effect of several posts.

And oh, don't get me started on university woes. I had a Freshman indoctrination class, mandatory for all honors students, called "Foundations of Inquiry." Every day we'd look at some social issue and argue about it. Usually it was me or me and a few against everybody. Then at the end, without fail, the teacher (not professor; she never professed anything), with a look of bland benign insight, would say "maybe the answer is that there is no RIGHT answer..." and everyone would nod solemnly.

oops...changing the subject again.

I was thinking about a nice possible connection between postmodernish thought and Thomas' five ways. Both presuppose dissatisfaction with the idea that the material universe is the First Thing, that there has to be Somebody behind the whole thing. Now if we can just convince all the postmodernists that it isn't their 2.5 lb brain that gives order and meaning to the universe...

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 4 2005, 11:26 PM']I think we can all agree that relativism is bad.  So if everyone is going to insist on defining postmodernism as relativism or nihilism or something equally ludicrous then it doesn't seem there's much to talk about.

What a few of us have tried to do is to point out how we might be able to define postmodernism in a different way, so that we can engage it, rather than just repeating anathemas.

There's a time for repeating anathemas, but postmodernism is new and ... well I've already posted on this earlier in the thread.  Let me try to make my point another way, by describing what I see as a bad strategy for dealing with new philosophies.

We notice that modernism is losing it's death-grip on Western civilization.  At the same time, we hear murmurings about something called "postmodernism" from various corners.  We don't really know what it is, and neither does anyone else.  Emergent paradigms are of their very nature amorphous and vague.  Now, who is going to participate in the discussion?  Who gets to steer the course of this developing paradigm?

Some of seem to be content to take a very simple definition, accept it at face value, and then condemn it.  If we do that, then postmodernism is going to be steered, developed, and defined by the secular academy.  I don't know about y'all, but I'm not optimistic that the secular academy is going to do the best job.

So maybe we should make a more serious attempt to understand, engage, and critique this thing called postmodernism.

Alternatively, we could just wait for the secular academy to decide what it is, then spend the next few hundred years hurling anathemas at it.  I think we can do better than that.  Maybe we can't -- maybe no one will listen to us.  But for God's sake let's at least try.

edit: for grammar
[right][snapback]811241[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I mostly agree with you here, but my reservation is this: postmodernism shouldn't have the privelege of determining the language of the discourse. To interact with the movement on such grounds would seem to give postmodernism a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve and I don't think the Church can really "steer the course". Postmodernism is a symptom of the times and I think it is fundamentally secular. We can engage it, learn from it, and maybe even at times ally with it, but the Church's mission remains the same. Maybe there can be something like a postmodern Christianity, but the fad of academic, leftist postmodernism is largely hostile to theism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 5 2005, 08:35 AM']"Vee are NIHILISTS, LebOWski!  Vee believe in NUSSING!"

"Nice Marmot."
[right][snapback]811777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Big Lebowski! The funniest movie of all time!

"Ve vant ze mo-ney Lebowski! Vere is ze mo-ney, Lebowski?"


Donny: "They were Nazis?"

Walter: "Well, let's not split hairs here, Donny. They were threatening castration."

The Dude: "They were nihilists. They kept saying they believed in nothing."

Walter: "Nihilists?! F--- me! I mean, say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an etha!"

. . .
Walter: "We were just gving sympathy, Dude."

Dude: "F--- sympathy! I don't need f---ing sympathy! I need . . . my johnson, man!"

Donny: "What for, Dude?"


Donny: "Are these the Nazis?"

Walter: "These men are nihilists, Donny. They're nothing to be afraid of."

Edited December 6, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

I think the big question here is:
Is "Postmodernism" a specific philosophy that needs to be dealt with?
Or does it just mean "the current thing" (whatever that happens to be)?

If "postmodernism" indeed has no real meaning, I say we forget it and turn this into a Big Lebowski quote thread!

[Justified Saint]

I think postmodernists would say that there is no real definition to postmodernism since the whole idea behind deconstructionism is the shifting and arbitrary nature of meaning.

Philosophical phuzzies!

[beatty07]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 5 2005, 05:38 PM']I mostly agree with you here, but my reservation is this:  postmodernism shouldn't have the privelege of determining the language of the discourse.  To interact with the movement on such grounds would seem to give postmodernism a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve and I don't think the Church can really "steer the course".  Postmodernism is a symptom of the times and I think it is fundamentally secular.  We can engage it, learn from it, and maybe even at times ally with it, but the Church's mission remains the same.  Maybe there can be something like a postmodern Christianity, but the fad of academic, leftist postmodernism is largely hostile to theism.
[right][snapback]812473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

agreed...

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 5 2005, 05:38 PM']I mostly agree with you here, but my reservation is this:  postmodernism shouldn't have the privelege of determining the language of the discourse.  To interact with the movement on such grounds would seem to give postmodernism a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve and I don't think the Church can really "steer the course".  Postmodernism is a symptom of the times and I think it is fundamentally secular.  We can engage it, learn from it, and maybe even at times ally with it, but the Church's mission remains the same.  Maybe there can be something like a postmodern Christianity, but the fad of academic, leftist postmodernism is largely hostile to theism.
[right][snapback]812473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree that much, including the very basis of Postmodernism is bad. With that said, our number one goal is to advance the Kingdom of God. Saying things like, "To interact with the movement on such grounds would seem to give postmodernism a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve", doesn't give us the chance to have a voice with them. If we are to engage the culture, and the culture is becoming more and more Postmodern, we need to swoon them. Evangelism is a lot like dating. You don't walk up to a potential date and command them to date you (well, some people go far that I gues). You have to establish trust, and trust begins with communication.