Postmodernish

[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

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lahecil' post='1042553' date='Aug 13 2006, 08:55 AM']
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.
[/quote]
While I tend to think there are too many laws and regulations in modern society, a situation of total and complete anarchy with no laws enforced does not create the peaceful utopia you invision. Rather, it leads to unchecked violence and chaos.
One man steals another's cattle.
He is caught by the owner of the cattle and killed for his crime.
At this, the brothers of the cattle thief kill the cattle owner and his wife for revenge.
Then the families of these murdered people get together, and go on a rampage killing all the members they can of their enemies' family, and raping the women.
And so on, and so forth . . .

Such situations actually have occured and do occur in lawless societies.

Your anarchist utopia presumes a world made of timid cowards, and does not take into account desire for revenge, greed, and bloodlust.

[quote]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. [/quote]
A silly statement. Something would still be unsafe or wrong whether there is a law against it or not. You seem to assume the only reason anyone would speed or run a light is for the sake of breaking the law.
People commit crimes because they think they can get away with them, or simply don't care about the consequences. If people are not scared out of committing crimes by the police or the law, why should we assume that in a lawless society, fear of other people would prevent any wrongdoing or unjust aggression? (especially in cases of the strong preying on the weak and defenseless)

Edited August 14, 2006 by Socrates

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1042912' date='Aug 13 2006, 07:40 PM']
While I tend to think there are too many laws and regulations in modern society, a situation of total and complete anarchy with no laws enforced does not create the peaceful utopia you invision. Rather, it leads to unchecked violence and chaos.
One man steals another's cattle.
He is caught by the owner of the cattle and killed for his crime.
At this, the brothers of the cattle thief kill the cattle owner and his wife for revenge.
Then the families of these murdered people get together, and go on a rampage killing all the members they can of their enemies' family, and raping the women.
And so on, and so forth . . .

Such situations actually have occured and do occur in lawless societies.

<snip>
[/quote]


Hatfield - McCoy
Israel - Palestine
Serbo-Croatian
Sunni-Shiite

[Lahecil]

Why would the man steal another man's cow if he knew there was a good chance he'd get killed for it? I agree that total anarchy isn't too great an idea, it was just an example.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]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?”[/quote]

If we aren't living in postmodern times, we are still living in modern times. In fact, we are living at the tail end of a modern age (according to some thinkers at least).

Academic postmodernists, I assume, wouldn't consider our age "post-relativist" because they would recognize that reletavism is definitely a reality and a serious threat.

On this account, modernism didn't "contribute" to relativism but rather is its logical conclusion. If modernity began with doubt and skepticism then so too does it end. Modernity prided itself on scientific certainty, but in fact that certainty only leads to a more deep and abiding uncertainty and thus a relativism that is in fact more nihilistic and hedonist in nature than anything else.

[Colleen]

One of my professors calls this the post-post-Modernist age.

[cmotherofpirl]

we are in the post-christian era