Postmodernism and socialism

Well, it's been so long since I've updated my blog that I forgot my blogger password. I know, pretty pathetic!

I just finished Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen R. C. Hicks. (I know, I've gotten behind in updating my reading list, too!) This book was a great overview of postmodernism, and helped me to understand a lot about its roots. I had no idea it was so entrenched in socialist philosophy, and so political in general. Some key points I learned from reading this book:

Leftist thinking came to be taken on by intellectuals and shifted to the academy largely because of the failure of socialist revolutions and uprisings. Tied in with this was the belief that the common man did not possess the mental capacity to understand how he had bought into capitalist schemes, nor did he (or would he ever, perhaps) realize his need for a socialist revolution.

Modern socialism, being threatened by the relatively comfortable living conditions of even the poorer classes of society, had to shift its focus from actual need to the idea of relative need and equality (i.e. the poor are oppressed because they do not live as comfortably as the rich). All sorts of "oppression" became apparent: sexual, racial, environmental. This concept helped to clarify for me a lot of the tendencies of the academy which I came to notice particularly when I worked at and did my masters degree at a public university.

The socialist roots of nihilism and deconstruction were also particularly well clarified for me. The failure of socialism led to such a disillusionment that "from the postmodern perspective the universe has been metaphysically and epistemologically shattered." The fact that ethical and political ideals had come to nothing contributed to the the resignation, "all is nothing." (197) The art of Duchamp is a great example of deconstruction. It stems from a deep hatred and jealousy of those who have more (in this case, creative genius) and says: "I cannot be special unless I destroy your achievement first." (199) Overall, both nihilism and deconstruction represent a leveling of the playing field, in the sense that the oppressed party seeks to bring those more fortunate down to their own level.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in postmodernism!

Suspicion reconsidered

Some final thoughts on Dick Keyes' Seeing Through Cynicism: In his discussion of politics I found his distinction between "creation ethics" and "redemption ethics" to be particularly noteworthy. As he explains, "Christians must distinguish between moral principles rooted in creation and moral principles rooted in redemption." Creation ethics apply to all people, while redemption ethics only apply to those who are followers of Christ. And, one of the most eye-opening statements of the whole book, for me: "Many of the disasters in Christian history and much cynicism about Christian political involvement have been caused by Christians who have ignored the distinction between creation and redemption ethics." (218) I think this is a very good framework by which to understand how the political actions of Christians have contributed to breeding such resentment and cynicism.

Finishing a book is a good feeling! Especially a book that I find to have significantly challenged me to evaluate my own attitudes and assumptions. Keyes' overall distinction between "suspicion" and "cynicism" was very helpful to me. The basic message of the book was that while suspicion is often a necessity as we live in this fallen world, the discerning Christian should beware of falling into long-term cynicism because it is not in line with the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.

the importance of being earnest?

I am struck by Keyes' observation that one of the marks of postmodern thinking is that earnestness is equated with naivete. This is very telling if you think about its implications for the perception of genuine faith. Though I tend toward postmodernism in my thinking, I'm gradually sorting out which aspects of postmodernism I identify with, and which aspects I merely observe in terms of their effect on the world in which I live. This one is a little bit of both. As I read this book I'm gaining a better understanding of how people perceive me as being an earnest person, and I'm processing whether or not this should bother me.

"Human life raises countless expectations and hopes that are never realized but only mock us. Existentialism found this a cause for despair; postmodernism finds it a good joke- but both begin with a cynicism about our ability to know ultimate meaning." (65)

flexibility

I don't remember if I've written about this subject before, but some some conversations and an article I read recently made me think more about Rob Bell's analogy of the Christian faith as a trampoline, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. To me it represents the epitome of "flexibility." I think that a lot of Christians are afraid of the term "flexible" because they take it to mean something that it is not, like maybe compromising the faith. But when you really think about it, something that is flexible (like a trampoline) is actually able to endure quite a bit of force and still keep its structural integrity. It is not surprising that those who operate, by contrast, with a "brick wall" metaphor for their faith find the idea of flexibilty to be either threatening (i.e. "if you try to bend it, it will break") or confusing ("What do you mean? A brick wall can't bend!")

cosmos and chaos

"my life work is fundamentally creative in nature. And creating has its own rhythms, its own pace. Inspiration comes at strange times when you create. And inspiration comes because of discipline." (115) I realize this thread is a little off-topic from what I have been writing about lately, but I really identify with Bell in this feeling. So often we buy into the popular impression that the creative soul finds inspiration when he is unhindered by structure or discipline. But I believe that God had created us after his image such that our creative tendencies are necessarily tied up in the need for recognizing, affirming, and establishing order. I wish I could remember where I first read the phrase "cosmos and chaos." I think it was while reading something about Leonard Bernstein. But I don't remember if it was he who came up with the phrase. Anyway, it had to do with the idea that we, as artists, have a drive that is founded upon the need to create "cosmos" or order amidst the chaos around us. I realize that Bell is talking about the setting in which creativity is fostered, more so than our reasons for creating. But I think it is all tied up in the same desires for order.

Velvet Elvis meanderings

 " . . . let's make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible-as-owner's-manual metaphor. It's terrible. It really is." (62) Rob Bell points out that the Bible is full of the "common grace" message and uses the example of Paul at Mars Hill. He quotes the poets of the day and affirms the truth of their writings, while at the same time making clear that they didn't have the whole picture. This is not unlike what the medieval philosophers did with the writings of Aristotle; they pressed the pagan philosophy into the service of the Christian faith. Now granted, they didn't always do this successfully, but in many ways they did and that legacy continues in many of the ways that we interpret Christianity to this day. All truth is God's truth.

measure, form, and order

Augustine says that "goodness" consists in "measure, form, and order."* What are the implications of this for music? To me it seems to shed light on our God-given desire toward order and form in music, and toward being able to have some measure of excellence in music, and in any of the arts, for that matter. Possibly many applications for aesthetics in general . . . hmmm . . . maybe a future article or paper on this.

*This is from a lecture I am currently listening to, entitled "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages" produced by The Teaching Company; lecturer: Thomas Williams.

Velvet Elvis

" . . . sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up. Can I just say that? Can I get that off my chest?" (42) Yes! Thank you, Rob Bell, for saying what many thinking Christians experience. Also, ". . . the Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted. And if it isn't interpreted, then it can't be put into action." (46) If this claim causes you concern, stop to think about why. I think a lot of us have been influenced by modernist attitudes toward the Bible, i.e. that it can be approached scientifically. But that just doesn't work. Another question raised is that if you leave room for personal context and experience, you are somehow compromising the inerrancy of scripture. But it is not possible to read the Bible (or anything, for that matter) without also bringing to it your personal experiences, historical contest, your own way of learning, knowing, etc (more on Polanyi's concept of "Personal Knowlede" later). This is a complex issue, and is tied up in the characterization of Christianity as a bastion of certainty, which I am strongly against (an area in which I agree with the postmoderns). I am excited to see Bell embracing the idea of mystery in our faith. I believe the quest for certainty has cause many problems for Christians and non-Christians alike. Does the Bible say "Seek ye first the certainty of God" or "Seek ye first the ability to answer all questions beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

Incarnational Humanism and Common Grace

I just finished reading The Passionate Intellect, and I have to say it is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It stimulated my thinking in so many ways, not only regarding university and the humanities, but about philosophy and dualism, and how as Christians we need to resist academic fragmentation and advocate a more integrated model of the intellectual life.

This book has helped me to realize that my belief in the concept of "common grace" is a salient aspect of my faith right now which causes me to distance myself from many evangelicals. "Incarnational humanism . . . insists on the humble acceptance of God's presence in non-Christian achievements" (167). Also, "Western culture has benefited immeasurably from the work of people on whom Christians (or a portion of the church, at least) too a dim view . . ." (173). This is a far cry from the ultra-conservative evangelical view that we must protect ourselves from any knowledge that comes via non-Christians. This is not only unbiblical, but would be impossible to live out. Thank you, Klaussen and Zimmermann, for elucidating a biblically-based respect for the life of the mind.

Creators of Culture

Question of the day: Who was Giambattista Vico, and why haven't we heard more about him? Apparently he was the father or our modern idea of the humanities. He opposed Descartes's notion that "human knowledge has to conform to the mathematical ideal of certainty . . . " (100) He argued that, "made in God's image, we are creators of culture" and "humanistic knowledge is known by participation" (101). He called this scientia nuova ("new science"). What an exciting parallel to Polanyi's concept of personal knowledge!

The Passionate Intellect

I highly recommend this book (by Klaussen and Zimmermann) to anyone who is interested in the subjects of university education, the humanities, and postmodernism. I wish I could have read it before I completed my college education (though it wasn't yet written!); through tracing the historical development of the university it has given me a new appreciation of the benefits of a well-rounded education, and along the way has cleared up some philosophical terminology, such as "dualism," "ideology," and of course, "humanism." And while it clarifies many terms and concepts, it is also a reminder that the concept of humanism is complex; understanding it involves an in-depth consideration of the Enlightenment and its critics, in all their various forms.
"Why is Heidegger so important? Because he attacked directly the Enlightenment's way of measuring truth and determining rationality. Something was considered rational and true when it could be examined neutrally and objectively. Objective knowledge had to be free from any personal involvement . . . " (116)