________________________________________

I have been reading, A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz and have been fascinated by the evolution of philosophy from the Middle Ages through Enlightenment (Modernity) to the current period of Postmodernity. Grenz does a fine job transposing the timeline of philosophical evolution through the eyes and pens of renowned philosophers: Rene’ Descartes; Kepler; Galileo; Newton; Bacon; Hume; Locke; Kant; Nietzsche; Heidegger; Saussure; Foucault; Derrida; Rorty; et al…

This book is packed. And to be truthful, having a dictionary close is a must.

Case in point: “Rorty’s utopianism is evident in his adamant rejection of the relativism that his critics often attribute to him. He categorically denies that trading foundationalism for an understanding that embeds “truth” within community leads to a self-refuting relativism.”¹

Getting back to the reason for this post… I’m intrigued by the Postmodern philosophy’s of Derrida and Rorty… Derrida’s deconstruction of the self is a fascinating critique of the folly’s of modernity, namely the focus on individual growth and scientific progress as keys to peace and tolerance. And Rorty’s pragmatic view of the world that limits truth to action, which seems to be in line with some of the teaching’s of Jesus (specifically, truth as action, not Rorty’s whole philosophical position).

…pragmatics understand truth as what works rather than what is theoretically correct. According to Rorty, pragmatism is the “vocabulary” of practice rather than of theory. It focuses on action rather than contemplation. ²

This is something that I tend to agree with, that truth – as a infinite philosophical idea is absurd, rather it is best defined as an action (or a person)… but Rorty goes further than I can hang, when he describes community and utopia in the passages below:

Our identification with our community — our society, our political tradition, our intellectual heritage — is heightened when we see this community as ours rather than nature’s, shaped rather than found, one among many which men have made. In the end the pragmatists tell us, what matters is our loyalty to other human beings clinging together against the dark, not our hope of getting things right. ³

______________________________

Rorty is not concerned that we will have to sacrifice anything valuable in order to attain the pragmatist utopia. He sees only benefits in the full flowering of cultural pluralism. After the “high alters” are gone, he suggests, the wholesome aspects of culture will multiply — galleries, book displays, movies, concerts, museums. We will be leaving behind nothing more than a privileged central discipline or practice. ⁴

Thoughts on his thoughts…

Community: Rorty describes community as a something shaped rather than found, as one among many, and this proposition I can agree with, but then he finishes the passage with a visual of loyalty found in a frightened huddle of people – like scared field mice during harvest season. It is true that loyalty matters, especially in community, but how can we be loyal by cowering alongside one another? This type of loyalty sounds rather impotent… Loyalty as I have experienced it is personified as steadfastness, devotion, trustworthiness, and allegiance, seen vividly when the marginalized stand up against a brutish opposition.

And to be clear, as Christians our hope is not in getting things right, rather our hope resides in the knowledge that we don’t. We are dependent on another, someone greater, who props up or cowering legs and straightens our slouching shoulders giving us strength in the dark night. As Christians our worldview is shaped by the metaphors of salt, yeast and light — two earthen artifacts and one heavenly — that preserve, infiltrate and enlighten.

Together, as a community, as a body – we do not so passively huddle and wait out the stormy night, rather we come together dependent on another. We are a society standing tall, offended at the darkness before us, armed not with guns, bombs and flames but with with salt, yeast and light – elements that preserve the good and penetrate the unknown with radiant love.

Utopia: This fully flowered culture of pluralism is as much a pipe dream as Willie Wonka’s uber happy, workaholic, Oompa Loompa’s. To be pluralistic is to be contented with another’s divergent view. In theory, this is called tolerance and is a virtue sought after by most Religion’s… well except one. That is the point. One incompatible piece ruins a truly pluralistic society. Pluralism can only live in a world devoid of power, for ultimate power corrupts ultimately, and we cannot go back to Eden and uproot the Tree that propagated this unholy pursuit of power. For this is the root of our human-ness – to wrestle with good and evil – the proposition of ying and yang that good and evil are in constant balanced tension. In this life a fully bloomed pluralistic society assumes consummate patience, faultless divorce, and a vocabulary devoid of retribution.

[Rabbit trail: Would the Garden have been perfect if the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” had not existed?]

Perfection is not as fun as we envision it to be – it is a robot existence – filled with choices that have no consequence. Rorty says after the “high alters” are gone the galleries will flourish with wholesome artistic reverence. But this refutes the context of reality (of which pragmatics should be so ruthlessly rooted), that art is created out of chaos. Art comes from the struggle between the belief and disbelief, and great art resonates with truth – life, death, joy, sorrow, pain and pleasure, sacred and profane.

Would beauty be so alluring without the offense of the grotesque?

I say no, a utopia without the “high alters” would be a society neutered… and if the dark ever did come, we could do nothing but cower together in utter dissolution.

_____________________________
1. Grenz, Stanley J.; “A Primer on Postmodernism” Kindle Loc. 3012-3015
2. Ibid: Kindle Loc. 2912-2914
3. Ibid: Kindle Loc. 2985-2987
4. Ibid: Kindle Loc. 3016-3017