Postmodernish

[journeyman]

Found at the Catholic Home Study Service enrollment page – very near the bottom – has a “new” button
[url="http://www.amm.org/chss.htm"]http://www.amm.org/chss.htm[/url]
link takes you to:
[url="http://www.bigrivertelephone.com/chss2/quiz2.aspx"]http://www.bigrivertelephone.com/chss2/quiz2.aspx[/url]

only one reading and quiz available – says will rotate materials as months go by


A college student wrote to his parents, “Why should I believe something that’s going to take away my freedom? Why belong to the Catholic Church which has all those laws and restrictions?”
Such questioning is not unusual in our time. Young people learn in some college classrooms that authority has no rights and is always to be questioned. Where does this come from? What is behind this contempt for authority?
POSTMODERNISM
The answer is often postmodernism. Postmodernism is a philosophy that encourages people to free themselves from every external authority. Postmodernism is a world view that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as right or wrong. Everything is relative. There is no God. Chaos and confusion rule. There should be no one to answer to but one’s own self. People create their own values, and when they are making choices, the only real consideration is “Does it feel good?”
This attitude is not limited to college campuses. It is widespread in modern society. We find a contempt for authority in the media, in much of secular journalism, in music, art, entertainment, and the Internet. Some argue that there should be absolutely no censorship, no restrictions placed from above, under any circumstances. Even child pornography should be unrestricted. This seems incomprehensible to people raised with traditional values, but to those whose thinking is guided by postmodernism, it seems logical. If there is no God, no right or wrong, no one should impose views on anyone else.
Obviously, the postmodern philosophy is hostile to religion, especially to the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that there is a God. There is truth. There is right and wrong. There is meaning to life. Life is more than just “feeling good.” Life is a gift from God. Jesus teaches that we can find meaning and happiness in knowing, loving, and serving God, and in loving the neighbor as ourselves. Jesus teaches that our choices have eternal consequences. If we want to be happy here and forever, we must seek out God’s will and let God’s authority be the guiding force in life.
For a postmodern, these ideas are hateful. That’s one reason why we find such contempt for the Catholic Church in so many people of influence. For example, Tim Russert of “Meet the Press” is put down by media elite who deride his education in Catholic schools and then dismiss him with the words, “Russert admits to being a practicing Catholic.”
It is no wonder, then, that college students who have grown up in a postmodern world will question authority. It is no wonder that many adults sometimes struggle with Church authority. We have all been influenced in one way or another by postmodernism. A few years ago I was ridiculed by a college professor (and Catholic priest!), because I stated that we should be teaching Jesus Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life. “We have no right,” this professor said, “to teach that Jesus is the Truth. This would mean we are right and others are wrong.”
That is postmodernism at its worst! The problem with postmodernism is that there IS truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Either there is a God or there is not. Either Jesus Christ is our Savior or He is a fraud. Either murder of an innocent person is wrong, or it is right. That is why, ultimately, postmodernism is absurd. But this is to be expected of a philosophy which says that everything is absurd, that life is meaningless, and that chaos dominates the universe.
I suspect that all of us, living in a society where postmodernism comes at us from every direction, have been influenced by it. In a recent article, Father Dave Pivonka, youth minister at Franciscan University, explains how young and old are affected by this philosophy: “First of all, it means that instead of being guided by reason, they’re guided by feelings. They do something not because they think it’s right or wrong–after all, if there is no truth, there is no right or wrong–but because it feels good ... they don’t think things through. They live in a loud world. There’s always noise, and they don’t ... want to take the time to be quiet and reflect. It’s not hard to understand why. When you live in a world without God, without truth, nothing makes sense. Their world just becomes confusing, and they become numb. So they make their world about being entertained, about noise, about constant activity going on around them.”
THE TRUTH THAT MAKES US FREE
How can we get beyond the influences of postmodernism and help others to do the same? Jesus is the answer. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). There IS truth, and truth makes us free (John 8:32). Jesus shows us the truth that God’s commandments make us truly free. They keep us from being enslaved by sin, by evil habits, and by the suggestions of Satan. Jesus gave us the Catholic Church as the Way to the finest freedom possible on this earth. Members of this Church are human, of course, and they do make mistakes. But the teachings of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and presented in Catechism of the Catholic Church, provide us with a path to freedom and lasting happiness.
This can be difficult for some, especially the young, to accept. They might see all laws as restrictive, as destructive of freedom. (After all, that’s what they’ve been told in movies, TV, the press, and the classroom). So I suggest the following scenario. It is your graduation day, and your parents give you a brand new convertible as a gift. Now you have freedom! Would you like to drive that beautiful new car to the nearest big city on a day when there are absolutely no traffic laws to restrict you? You can drive as fast as you want. But so can everybody else. Truckers can drive their eighteen wheelers at 100 miles per hour, eastbound in the westbound lane of the Interstate. Anyone can make a left turn or a U-turn at will. Cool. No laws. Complete freedom!
But I have never found a person who’d want to drive that new car under those conditions. Why? Because where there are no laws, there is no freedom. You really can’t go anywhere. Good traffic laws don’t destroy freedom. They give us the freedom to travel.
And so it is on the road of life. God’s laws and good human laws, whether secular or religious, don’t take away freedom. They make us free to live a worthwhile, happy life.
FREEDOM FROM AND FREEDOM FOR
Doctor John Patrick, a brilliant physician-philosopher, says that we must make the distinction between freedom FROM, and freedom FOR. Postmodernism focuses on the former. Jesus teaches the latter. If we want to live happily, we must realize that freedom must be directed toward worthy goals, above all, love of God and neighbor, not just freedom from, but freedom for.
In this regard, we should notice the discipline required for success in sports and music. Great athletes have the ability to hit home runs or sink three-pointers, but that’s because they spend hours practicing. If bodies are to be free to jump and run, there are rules that must be followed, rules about proper diet, exercise, and conditioning that enable athletes to excel. The same is true for musicians. Before a young lady is free to play magnificent music on her violin, she must learn the laws that govern music, play scales, and spend long hours rehearsing. Athletes and musicians have the freedom to achieve great things because they’ve followed the rules. Rules give freedom FOR!
So we shouldn’t believe something that’s going to take away our freedom. We should believe Someone, Jesus, who will make us truly free. And the Catholic Church won’t take away our freedom. It gives us freedom FOR. It gives us a pattern for living that will allow us to excel on the playing field of life and to turn our years into a beautiful symphony that will go on forever.



Postmodernism is a philosophy that makes all the following claims except:
A. There is no truth
B. There is no right or wrong
C. There is no God
D. Happiness comes from obedience to authority.

Postmodernism is hostile to religion and to the Catholic Church. A. True B. False

According to Father Dave Pivonka, people who are affected by postmodernism act in all these ways except:
A. they are guided by feelings
B. they think things through
C. they live in a loud world
D. they do things because they feel good

You would be truly free if there were no laws to hold you back. A. True B. False

According to Doctor John Patrick, If we want to live happily, we must focus on freedom FOR, not just freedom FROM. A. True B. False

[Laudate_Dominum]

that's pretty cool. I wonder why Father Dave Pivonka is mentioned? That's so cool.

[Justified Saint]

Is this for real?

That is the most one-sided and erroneous description of postmodernism that I have ever come across.

Critique postmodernism -- yes -- but not with strawmen.

[chris]

I actually enrolled...Im taking the class on the mass.

I did read the article and took the quiz and got a 4 out of 5

Im such a failure...

Edited August 11, 2006 by Convert4888

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Convert4888' post='1041198' date='Aug 10 2006, 04:55 PM']
I actually enrolled...Im taking the class on the mass.

I did read the article and took the quiz and got a 4 out of 5

Im such a failure...
[/quote]

Hee, I got a 5/5 -- even though I had to lie :

[Lahecil]

[quote]Is this for real?

That is the most one-sided and erroneous description of postmodernism that I have ever come across.

Critique postmodernism -- yes -- but not with strawmen.[/quote]
Agreed. I've got a lot of problems with it myself.

[Justified Saint]

Indeed, Hedonism and Postmodernism are very different things -- even if they overlap in places (postmodern Freudians can be scary

[Lahecil]

I can attest to that.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with JS, an article like that only serves to discredit serious Catholic thought. I have never heard of, nor met, anyone who believes all of those things listed in the article at the same time. There are plenty of problems with postmodernism even in its strongest articulations: there is simply no excuse for misrepresentation like that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I guess I should have done more than scan the article. I didn't presume that it was supposed to be 'serious Catholic thought', from what I saw it seemed to be on a more popular level and was perhaps using the term 'post-modern' in a more colloquial sense.

There was an essay in the proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association a while back which was pretty sweet... I wonder if it is possible to find their stuff online?

I found their site for anyone who may be interested:

[url="http://www.pdcnet.org/procacpa.html"]http://www.pdcnet.org/procacpa.html[/url]

The published proceedings tend to have very interesting and thought provoking essays written by Catholic scholars. Just scroll down and click on the various issues and I'm sure you'll see many article titles which will make you drool.

[Lahecil]

Thanks Laudate! *bookmarks*

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Lahecil' post='1041572' date='Aug 11 2006, 12:11 PM']
Thanks Laudate! *bookmarks*
[/quote]
np

[journeyman]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1041187' date='Aug 10 2006, 05:27 PM']
Is this for real?

That is the most one-sided and erroneous description of postmodernism that I have ever come across.

Critique postmodernism -- yes -- but not with strawmen.
[/quote]

[quote name='Lahecil' post='1041387' date='Aug 11 2006, 07:07 AM']
Agreed. I've got a lot of problems with it myself.
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1041525' date='Aug 11 2006, 11:09 AM']
I agree with JS, an article like that only serves to discredit serious Catholic thought. I have never heard of, nor met, anyone who believes all of those things listed in the article at the same time. There are plenty of problems with postmodernism even in its strongest articulations: there is simply no excuse for misrepresentation like that.
[/quote]

Fr Lukefahr has always responded to my messages in a cordial manner - perhaps you could draft a more appropriate article for him . . . perhaps work up the drafts here and learn all of us some knowledge . . .


[quote name='Convert4888' post='1041198' date='Aug 10 2006, 05:55 PM']
I actually enrolled...Im taking the class on the mass.

I did read the article and took the quiz and got a 4 out of 5

Im such a failure...
[/quote]

That’s the book I just finished –

5 of 5

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1041271' date='Aug 10 2006, 07:19 PM']
Hee, I got a 5/5 -- even though I had to lie :
[/quote]

How could you possibly lie answering little radio button questions?
Answering a question knowing that it was imprecisely written to give the intended answer, even though additional knowledge suggests the question and intended answer might not be correct never quite fit my definition of lying . . . letting the testing organization know my thoughts did result in my getting appointed to the committee to review the test questions once . . .

[Lahecil]

I'd love to write an entire article on postmodernism and the Catholic Church. Unfortunately there are two problems there. One is that I'm 16 and have no academic credentials, other than an A average in my high school, nor do I have any religious credentials as I've not formally studied any religion, solely personal study. Second, I'm not Catholic. Anything I write would gain little respect from such heavyweights as yourselves.

I just don't see what's so bad about enjoying life, so long as you don't cross the line and become a danger to others, such as drunk drivers. I also don't see what's so terrible about questioning authority...isn't that what keeps it from going too far? I'm all for obedience to whatever God people choose, but I also think there comes a point where you have to think for yourself...we're only on Earth for so long!

[journeyman]

One of the nice things about PM - no credentials necessary

Feel free to start - anywhere - although I always got lost in philosophy discussions since the words don't mean what I think they do . . . so start be defining terms, and then move on?

I don't think the Catholic Church objects to enjoying life - but to a life where the enjoyment becomes the primary goal of that life.

If you didn't like the "no traffic regulations" analogy, make us a new one

Don't hide your light under a bushel.

[Justified Saint]

I could say a few things, but I am feeling kind of lazy right now so it will probably have to wait until next week

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1041536' date='Aug 11 2006, 11:27 AM']
I guess I should have done more than scan the article. I didn't presume that it was supposed to be 'serious Catholic thought', from what I saw it seemed to be on a more popular level and was perhaps using the term 'post-modern' in a more colloquial sense.

There was an essay in the proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association a while back which was pretty sweet... I wonder if it is possible to find their stuff online?

I found their site for anyone who may be interested:

[url="http://www.pdcnet.org/procacpa.html"]http://www.pdcnet.org/procacpa.html[/url]

The published proceedings tend to have very interesting and thought provoking essays written by Catholic scholars. Just scroll down and click on the various issues and I'm sure you'll see many article titles which will make you drool.
[/quote]
I should note that some contributors may be "liberal", but in general they are not. One of the contributors to volume 79 is a guy I used to know back when he was a masters student, I only knew him for a couple years but during those years I detected a certain tendency toward liberalism which bothered me quite a bit. There are another five names that I recognize as people that I know now, or once knew, and most are very loyal to the magisterium, but one or two of them are to some degree hostile to the magisterium. Then there are the names of scholars who I have never met, but am familiar with their work to some degree. My evaluation is pretty much the same here; a mix of people I would describe as faithful to the magisterium, and people I would be weary of.


[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1042219' date='Aug 12 2006, 05:56 PM']
I could say a few things, but I am feeling kind of lazy right now so it will probably have to wait until next week
[/quote]
aww come on.. say a few things, please.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1042220' date='Aug 12 2006, 04:57 PM']
aww come on.. say a few things, please.
[/quote]

Ok, but just a few/incomplete ramblings

Journeyman,

I suppose L_D's distinction is a helpful one, i.e. the idea of a more popular and cultural understanding of postmodernism and postmodernism as an academic/intellectual movement which are two totally different things. Many followers in the latter camp would suggest that we aren't living in "postmodern times". The idea of (moral) relevatism is in many ways simply an extension or logical consequence of modernity's idolatry of science and rationalism. In that sense, yes, we live in a time of moral relativism that you could say is by definition "post-modern", but it should be recognized that modernity created that relevatism, at least as some academic postmodernists tell the story.

Thus in conclusion, postmodernity not only eschews relativity but in a certain sense tries to go beyond the whole question of relativity. This argument comes from the recognition that nobody can possibly claim to occupy a special place of epistemic standing by which they could objectively discern truth/reality. Thus relativity is a presupposition as much as it is a conclusion.

[Lahecil]

[quote]If you didn't like the "no traffic regulations" analogy, make us a new one[/quote]

Actually, I really really like the no traffic regulations analogy. Reminds me of Crowley, you can do what you want, but so can everyone else. You can do anything you want to on the road, but so can everyone else. Since everyone is also afraid for THEIR own cars, lives, and families they're going to go slower, watch for the other cars, and just be more careful on the road. Just like you. If anything, it could be safer, since there would be no laws, there'd be no one to break laws and create dangerous situations for everyone else. You'd have no reason to run a redlight, or speed, because there would be no laws against doing so. The fact that everyone else can do it too without getting into trouble would scare you into not wanting to do it at all.

[journeyman]

oops - double post


[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1042236' date='Aug 12 2006, 06:34 PM']
Ok, but just a few/incomplete ramblings

Journeyman,

I suppose L_D's distinction is a helpful one, i.e. the idea of a more popular and cultural understanding of postmodernism and postmodernism as an academic/intellectual movement which are two totally different things. Many followers in the latter camp would suggest that we aren't living in "postmodern times". The idea of (moral) relevatism is in many ways simply an extension or logical consequence of modernity's idolatry of science and rationalism. In that sense, yes, we live in a time of moral relativism that you could say is by definition "post-modern", but it should be recognized that modernity created that relevatism, at least as some academic postmodernists tell the story.

Thus in conclusion, postmodernity not only eschews relativity but in a certain sense tries to go beyond the whole question of relativity. This argument comes from the recognition that nobody can possibly claim to occupy a special place of epistemic standing by which they could objectively discern truth/reality. Thus relativity is a presupposition as much as it is a conclusion.
[/quote]


Have I mentioned I have no training in philosophy . . . are we talking philosophy?

L_D suggests, and you go along with the idea that there may be two different uses of the term “postmodernism.” One is the popular understanding; the other is the academic/intellectual movement. The latter group does not agree the label describes their group.

If we aren’t living in postmodern times, what times are we living in?

Does the fact that modernism contributed to relativism eliminate the fact that if followed modernism . . . ergo is “post” modern?

Are you saying the academic post-moderns run away from the label? Or they are saying that we are so far past modernism that they should be considered “post-relativists?”

Eschew: shun: avoid and stay away from deliberately

Nobody can possibly claim to occupy a special place of knowledgeable standing by which they could objectively discern truth/reality. Relativity is an assumption as much as it is a conclusion

OK, I’m a laymen. Even after looking up half the words in that paragraph I still don’t know what it means.

Ergo, in a pre-relativist presupposition, it was bafflegab?

. . . . . .

Modernism: Teachings of a group of thinkers who recognize the reality of the Divine but in so doing depend on their own subjective experience; thus they condemn faith; the seeking my man to find all religion, natural and supernatural, in himself; the theory that religion is of man; men of ultra-liberal thought along scientific lines in the Church are called modernists. Modernism was an outcome of the Reformation, but in the nineteenth century it became drastically liberal and anti-religious. Modernism has been condemned by the Church in pronouncements of 1907 and 1910. (Source: Concise Catholic Distionary – Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur in 1943; publish date 1992, Angelus Press)

Relativism expresses the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference. Relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviours only in terms of, for example, their historical or cultural context. (Source: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)[/url]

The Catholic Church and relativism
The Catholic Church for some time now, especially under Pope Benedict XVI (who formerly headed the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith as a cardinal), has identified relativism as one of the problems of today. [2]
According to the Church and to some philosophers, relativism, as a denial of absolute truth, leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of sin and of God.
Relativism, orthodox Catholics say, constitutes a denial of the capacity of the human mind and reason to arrive at truth. Truth, according to Catholic theologians and philosophers (following Aristotle and Plato) consists of adequatio rei et intellectus, the correspondence of the mind and reality. Another way of putting it states that the mind has the same form as reality. This means when the form of the computer in front of me (the type, color, shape, capacity, etc.) is also the form that is in my mind, then what I know is true because my mind corresponds to objective reality.
Relativism, according to the Catholic and Aristotelian viewpoint, violates the philosophical principle of non-contradiction, a most fundamental principle of all thinking, and without which humans have no way to understand each other nor any possibility of science.
The denial of an absolute reference denies God, who equates to Absolute Truth, according to these Christian philosophers. Thus, they say, relativism links to secularism, an obstruction of God in human life.
The possibility of denying absolute truth is based on the concept of original sin, according to traditional Catholic theology. The first head of the human race, Adam, offended God and misused his reason, thus wounding himself and the nature he was supposed to pass on to the rest of his descendants. Our human nature while largely functional has, through these "wounds," a certain difficulty in reaching the truth, either because (1) our mind is distracted and easy exhausted, or (2) our will hesitates in doing what is good, just and true. Thus, many Catholic theologians contend that the choice of atheism not only has intellectual roots but moral roots as well.
[edit]
John Paul II
John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor ("The Splendor of the Truth") stressed the dependence of man on God and his law ("Without the Creator, the creature disappears") and the "dependence of freedom on the truth". He warned that man "giving himself over to relativism and skepticism, goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself".
In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), he says:
The original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. (Italics added)
[edit]
Benedict XVI
In April 2005, in his address[3] to the cardinals during the pre-conclave Mass which would elect him as Pope (a key public address to the top leaders of the Church), the future Benedict XVI talked about the world "moving towards a dictatorship of relativism".
On June 6, 2005, he told educators[4]:
"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own 'ego'"
Then during the World Youth Day in August 2005, he also traced to relativism the problems produced by the communist and sexual revolutions, and provided a counter-counter argument.[5]
In the last century we experienced revolutions with a common programme – expecting nothing more from God, they assumed total responsibility for the cause of the world in order to change it. And this, as we saw, meant that a human and partial point of view was always taken as an absolute guiding principle. Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism. It does not liberate man, but takes away his dignity and enslaves him. It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the guarantor of our freedom, the guarantor of what is really good and true.

(Source: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism)[/url]


Epistemic – of or relating to epistemology

Epistemology or the theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge. The term "epistemology" originated from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (account/explanation).
(Source: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)[/url]

Rationalism
Rationalists believe that there are a priori or innate ideas that are not derived from experience. These ideas, however, may be justified by experience. These ideas may in some way derive from the structure of the human mind, or they may exist independently of the mind. If they exist independently, they may be understood by a human mind once it reaches a necessary degree of sophistication.
The epitome of the rationalist view is Descartes' Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), in which the skeptic is invited to consider that the mere fact that he doubts this claim implies that there is a doubter. Because doubting is a kind of thinking, the claim must be correct. Spinoza derived a rationalist system in which there is only one substance, God. Leibniz derived a system in which there are an infinite number of substances, his Monads.
(Source: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)[/url]

Edited August 14, 2006 by journeyman