Archive for the ‘Philosophy in Context’ Category

In class tonight my professor made an interesting observation regarding the “postmodern movement.”

 His point was that postmodernism isn’t necessarily a “shift” but rather a strain, albeit a radical one, within modernity.

To illustrate this point he pointed us to one of Johnny-Dee’s favorite philosophers, Rene Descartes.  Descartes is widely believed to have ushered in the enlightenment/modernity with his famous rationalistic approach to understand reality.  He attemped to raze his entire belief system down in order to begin again on a sure foundation.  His famous dictum “I think, therefore i am,” came in part from the belief he had found an undeniably certain foundation to begin on, that of the belief that he couldn’t refute the fact that he was a thinking creature.  From this basic belief Descartes built from the ground up (hence his association with strong foundationalist epistemology).

While my professor readily affirmed that the postmodern person would find Descartes trust in his reason to find truth seriously misguided and naive at best, the postmodern actually bases this critique on the father of the Enlightenment’s methodology. 

Like Descartes, the consistent postmodern person use a “methodology of doubt” when evaluating truth.  That is to say that Descartes and the postmodern believe that it is doubtful whether anything their beliefs are true or can be justified. 

Their is an obvious difference between the two when it comes to applying this methodology.  Descartes answer is to begin again, hopeful that through reason he can find “something to believe in.”  The postmodern however takes this methodology to its extreme conclusion, elieving that ultimately nothing, not even reason can save them from drowning in relativism. 

So while there are differences in application, the method in both camps is (roughly) the same.  Maybe the postmodern is more consistent, or maybe too cynical.  So while in some ways “postmodernism” is different in how it understands epistemology than modernity, they both are branches growing off the trunk of skepticism that fueled the “age of reason.”  So really instead of being a completely new monster or “shift,” maybe it is just a further outgrowth of the ideals of modernity.

I’m sure many will disagree with my professor’s assessment.  This was only a comment he in passing; i’m sure he has much more to say than this.  I for one see alot of truth in what he says.  Any thoughts?

I have finally began my exploration into Greek Philosophy, which is considered the birth of all subsequent western philosophical reflection.  I have discovered so many interesting things so far, and have much more to do.

 

This post will be focused only on one brief facet of early Greek thought, so that i am not typing too long. More will be coming soon.

 

One point i found interesting was the parallels between what birthed philosophy in the west to later historical/philosophical developments. The Presocratics (the first of three stages in Greek thought) were forerunners of the Enlightenment because they saw their culture in bondage to fear of religion and its superstitions.  As Barnes points out, “the presocratics were not atheists; they allowed the gos into their brave new world, and some of them attempted to produce an improved and rationalized theology in place of the anthropomorphic divinities of the Olympian Pantheon (xviii).”

 

While they were not atheists, they were introducing rational and more scientific ways of thinking about their world.  Morey gives an apt illustration by saying that with the rise of astronomy and mathematics, “men began to learn that the movement of the heavenly bodies is controlled by certain fixed laws, and not by the whim of the gods (162).”

 

The outcome of this is easy to see.  Morey again:  “They began to lose faith in the old mythology, and to seek for some explanation of things more in accordance with reason.  Philosophy thus tended to purify the old religion (162).”  It should be noted that it did not “kill religion” as such, but drastically changed it.

 

When i read these ideas, i hear Kant and Harnack echoing approval.  This approach is very much in their spirit of thinking.

 

From this i ask how can the church faithfully accept newer and more complex findings from outside disciplines, like cosmology, biology, psychology and the like, without losing its soul, its heart?  Aren’t we already asking those questions when we have people like Borg, Spong, and Gulley offering an “alternative” view of the Christian faith? 

 

While losing the heart of the Gospel (Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement) can’t happen, another “the world is flat” answer from the church won’t work either.  How can the faith remain grounded in its ancient apostolicity while being surrounded by an increasingly complex world?  How do we incarnate this pure, “simple” Gospel?