Catholicism and Postmodernity

[The Joey-O]

I'm with Socrates...I'm not sure if we're speaking the same language MichaelFilo. I understand that Postmodernism extends into politics, but what does it have to do with religious freedom in your opinion? It seems to me that postmodernism would endorse either an "uber-tribe" (as opposed to ubermench) mentality or peaceful comingling. This of course depends on which side of the postmodern debate one puts themselves on (if they choose to accept the postmodern rules, that is).

[Justified Saint]

I agree with John Lukacs that we are standing at the end of the Modern Age, but postmodernism is not the standard-bearer of a brave new world. Truth is that there are significant overlaps between Modernity and PostModernity and anyone who thinks differently has been duped.

I would be the first to admit that much of postmodern literature confuses me and is unintelligible. I agree with Socrates; for the most part it is an intellectual and academic fad of the Left. I think the reason it is so difficult to define and understand postmodernism is because it is so confused and meaningless. Many of its supposedly basic tenets are not new or unique.

Of course, I don't mean to say that postmodernism is completely worthless or that it should just be dismissed. I think there is actually significant room for interaction and discussion. Yet, the bottom line is that many forms of postmodernism when taken to their logical ends take you to nihilism and atheism. Personally, I don't think the Church should privelege such a movement by recognizing it as a whole, though it certainly needs to address individual thinkers and ideas.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 3 2005, 04:25 PM']This is actually incorrect.  (You need to go back and review your history!)  Luther's revolt began in 1517.  The so-called Enlightenment began over a century later, and was at first centered in Catholic France (Though the Enlightenment thinkers, of course, rejected the Church).

And Luther was hardly an "Enlightenment"-type thinker.  In fact, he was quite the opposite.  Luther and the other early Protestant leaders would be considered in today's language "ultra-conservative reactionaries" - reacting against what they saw as a decadent and worldy Church in Rome.  Luther taught "Sola Fide" and "Sola Scriptura" and emphasized Faith over reason, which he said was a tool of the devil.  (The enlightenment, by contrast, idolized human reason, and considered religious Faith contrary to Reason.)

The humanistic Renaissance thought  that was a precursor to the Enlightment was centered in Catholic Italy during Luther's time.  The decadence and corruption of Renaisance Rome was part of what made the Protestant Revolt a success (in reaction against this).  Luther's thinking was quite anti-humanistic.  And Protestantism took root in Northern European countries, which were much less influenced by Renaisance humanism.

While the weakening of faith in authority of the Catholic Church brought on by the Protestant Revolt may have helped make people more succeptible to Enlightenment ideas, the Enlightment came AFTER the Protestant Revolt, and can in no way be said to have caused it.

~ Just a little History lesson, folks, to set things straight.  Now back to the discussion at hand. . .
[right][snapback]809946[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To be sure, while Luther was no Enlightenment thinker, the "Modern Age" essentially begins with the Reformation. The Reformation ideal was basically a primitive one; "get back to the basics, the essentials of Christianity". In this sense it is fundamentally ahistorical and reductionist. Renaissance humanism also argued along similar lines even though Luther was usually at odds with the movement.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 4 2005, 11:43 AM']To be sure, while Luther was no Enlightenment thinker, the "Modern Age" essentially begins with the Reformation.  The Reformation ideal was basically a primitive one; "get back to the basics, the essentials of Christianity".  In this sense it is fundamentally ahistorical and reductionist.  Renaissance humanism also argued along similar lines even though Luther was usually at odds with the movement.
[right][snapback]810605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Agreed, for the most part. (Though I would say Renaissance humanism was along different lines than the Reformation).

My main point was that the Protestant Revolt came before, rather than after, the Enlightenment, and thus arguing that "using Enlightenment language" could have prevented the Protestant Revolt makes no sense historically.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Dec 4 2005, 01:02 AM']I agree with John Lukacs that we are standing at the end of the Modern Age, but postmodernism is not the standard-bearer of a brave new world.  Truth is that there are significant overlaps between Modernity and PostModernity and anyone who thinks differently has been duped. 

I would be the first to admit that much of postmodern literature confuses me and is unintelligible.  I agree with Socrates; for the most part it is an intellectual and academic fad of the Left.  I think the reason it is so difficult to define and understand postmodernism is because it is so confused and meaningless.  Many of its supposedly basic tenets are not new or unique. 

Of course, I don't mean to say that postmodernism is completely worthless or that it should just be dismissed.  I think there is actually significant room for interaction and discussion.  Yet, the bottom line is that many forms of postmodernism when taken to their logical ends take you to nihilism and atheism.  Personally, I don't think the Church should privelege such a movement by recognizing it as a whole, though it certainly needs to address individual thinkers and ideas.
[right][snapback]810273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Basically, it seems that "post-modernism" is a kind of nihilism in the wake of modernism, rather than a positive intellectual/cultural movement.

[morostheos]

I would say this article partially reflects how the Church is reacting to post-modernism:

[quote]Relativism Seen Creeping Into Catholic Theology
Ilaria Morali Addresses Congress on Mysticism

ANCONA, Italy, DEC. 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The ideas of relativism that permeate secular thought are also advancing in some areas of Catholic theology, warned theologian Ilaria Morali.

The dogmatic theologian made these affirmations at the congress on "Christian Mystical Experience, Non-Christian Mysticism and New Western Religiosity," held until Saturday in Ancona at March Polytechnic University. It was organized by the East-West Center.

Morali, a theology professor at the Gregorian University, quoted from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and said that relativism, which considers all religions valid and equal, is becoming "the central problem for faith in our time."

There is a tendency, according to Morali, to "profess an idea of the divine reality and of the relationship between man and God which is totally incompatible with faith, to the point that it rejects the fact that Christian revelation can aspire to have a unique character."

"The universal value of a personal relationship between God and man, attested by Christian revelation, is excluded," she said.

"The doctrine of friendship with God through grace is the foundation of Christian mysticism," she said, and in this sense, it has a unique character.

The theologian urged that one not allow oneself to be "subjugated by the impersonal God worshipped by the relativists so as to again encounter the God of Jesus Christ, the personal face and friend of salvation."
ZE05120420[/quote]

[beatty07]

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

Edited December 5, 2005 by beatty07

[morostheos]

Sorry, my post of the article about relativism wasn't meant to imply that post-modernism is merely relativism. I just read the article and saw that is was speaking about something that was being done to counteract relativism, which is certainly one aspect of post-modernism. I would agree that there is great potential in aiming to help shape a cultural paradigm, it is an essential part of our calling as Christians in the world to be as yeast in the dough, transforming it for the good.

I would say that one thing we should strive to accomplish is to take religious tolerance one step beyond that of relativism. Instead of merely saying what's ok for you might not be ok for me and we should leave it that way, expanding the idea of "tolerance" to mean we may believe different things are ok, but there is certainly a possibility that one is right and the other is wrong, and we should be open to dialogue about our different opinions of truth.

I would say where I went to college was a very postmodern environment. In this environment, people were so accepting of diversity that oftentimes they were also very open to being evangelized. Granted, my college certainly had it's fair share of relativism, but the step of being open to dialogue I see as a huge one.

I don't really know much about modernism, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the modernist view of organized religion was one of the hierarchy oppressing the masses, while the postmodernist view seems to be more ambivalent.

[The Joey-O]

Yes, I agree. It can take the form of the deadly nihilism. I was a nihilist once. It was unpleasant. Post-modernism can also entail what I like to call cybernetic global-optimism which is like modernism on steiroids. Basically, instead of industry we look toward a futuristic, positive matirix-like world where everyone's neo. The individual is paramount, rather the whole world will be wrapped up in one giant adventure: the ultimate RPG. It relies on the possibility of robots and things taking care of the "dirty work" and humans just play, explore and work on self-actualization.

Both of those ends aren't positive, but they're both found within the postmodern mindset (possibly similar to how modernism produced Neitzchean (I'm a horrible speller) existentialists and Keikerghardian (oy, why did they have to be German?) existentialists.

In Christ's Love,
JoeyO.

[beatty07]

"Vee are NIHILISTS, LebOWski! Vee believe in NUSSING!"

"Nice Marmot."

[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.