Hi, Stephen!

My responses will begin with [J and end with ]

Subject: [faithmaps] philosophy, modernism, & postmodernism Date: Tue,
13 Nov 2001 19:22:20 -0500 From: "Stephen Shields"
<sshields@...> Reply-To: faithmaps@yahoogroups.com To:
<faithmaps@yahoogroups.com>

jon,

Thank you for elaborating on some earlier comments here. I'd like to
ask a couple of questions stemming from your comments.

jg

That criticism of modernism has been going on in the Aristotelean and
Thomistic traditions as well as in various strands of analytic
philosophy and phenomenology without falling into uncritical relativisms
and other ancient mistakes that go back to Protagoras who once said that
man is the measure of all things.

ss

As you know, I've been historically positive about certain features of
postmodernism. So first let me define two features of radical
postmodernism as 1) a complete denial of either the existence of
absolute truth or the ability to reliably access truth and 2) a
thoroughgoing epistemic anthropocentricity. Obviously I wish to
differentiate radical postmodernism (which I realize, jon, you might see
as true postmodernism) from a more moderate form I find helpful in
critiquing a modernized evangelicalism.

[J Well characterize this “moderate pomo, would you please! What are
its key claims, presuppositions, methods, and aims and let us see how
sound they are, OK?]


Ok, that being said:

1) Would you see the fundamental mistake of a radical postmodernism the
idea that ultimate knowing is grounded in man (epistemic
anthropocentricity)? If you do, would that not be the same mistake as
modernism? And if you agree with that, would you characterize the
difference being that modernism is optimistic about that starting place
while postmodernism is radically pessimistic?

[J YES!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!! And both are blind to being and the
being of what is, was, and will be!!!!!!!!!!!!!]



2) When you mention "uncritical relativisms" are you primarily referring
to this extreme subjective epistemology or something else?

[J All relativisms are uncritical because generated by false assumptions
such as diversity and difference implies no objective truth etc.
Contextualism as a category and as a basic in analysis is necessary.
But being focused on contexts in order to do justice to contextual
factors does not logically imply any kind of relativism. The way to
show me wrong is to produce such a logical implication!!!!]

3) I would be interested in a thumbnail sketch - when you've time and if
you can do it off the top of your head - of the thread of mistaken ideas
that form the "foundation" (pardon the philosophical pun!) of
postmodernism.

[J Well, the main point is obliviousness to being as a distinct subject
matter and obliviousness to the context of being. This puts all ideas
coming from this oblivion at risk of being unsound because so much is
left out from the beginning. The starting point in any kind of search
for truth is of the utmost importance. So, more than mistaken ideas, is
a mistaken attitude, and a failure to pay attention to the
intelligibility of being, and a failure to love truth along with
uncritical assumptions about truth and about systematic thinking that is
willing to be tested and evaluated at every step.]

jon, in popular philosophical discussion, including what you see
evangelicals doing, it really does seem like there's only two worlds -
the modern and the postmodern. Classical Realism and Ancient Philosophy
just seems to be ignored. Is that your observation as well (now, I
reiterate I'm talking about *popular* discussion)?


[J Yes. Learning takes time and effort. Most people just read
indiscriminately what is new and fail to explore the old paths...the
investment of such an exploration will take a good deal of time.... but
for those who want to be faithful to what has already been provided and
learn from it in order to do responsible non-whining thinking today,
they will pay the price and learn from the masters, Plato, Aristotle,
Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas etc. They will endeavor to see whether
modern or contemporary philosophy has really relegated these masters to
obsolescence or not!!!!!! They will see that being as the starting
point is far superior to any other starting point. Heidegger will of
course agree with this assessment though he thinks (wrongly) that he has
buried metaphysics and it is at its end.......(another mistake!). They
will also understand that they have a responsibility to develop their
minds by learning analytical and logical methods of critical
thinking,and critical reading. They will resist being curious in the
manner of skimming the surfaces of many books and things in order to do
the hard work of really learning how to think in the many modes of
thinking that there are. They will realise that books are tools for
thought and not ends in themselves. Aristotle, the Medievals and
Heidegger have much to say about the different modes of thinking
.......as well as people in other traditions such as Islam, Buddhism
etc.]
jg

Hard work can be judged by how well it corresponds to what is and the
main mistake of much modernism and postmodernism is to assume that
people are cognitively locked up in sense data, concepts, language in
such a way that they have no direct cognitive access with the being of
things, the being of events, and the being of persons, and the being of
God. These assumptions generate the relativism and exclude the
epistemic possibility that there are knowable standards for truth and
falsity in the being of things, events, people, and God!!!!!!

ss

jon , I am completely tracking with you here, 'cause you and I have
discussed this extensively offlist (or maybe onlist months ago) but for
many who've joined us in recent weeks, you may wish to elaborate a bit
on this rich point when you've time.

[J No time! See earlier posts on fm or if questions, I will respond!!!!
Sorry!]

jg

The main problem is people refusing to learn about the history of
western thought to see that it is far richer than modernism which is a
blight and which was always fundamentally flawed since it was a turn
away from the study of being towards subjective certainty grounded in
the human subject. Pomo is right to criticize this.

ss

Yes, "a turn away from the study of being towards subjective certainty
grounded in the human subject" being exampled by Descartes' positing the
foundation of human knowing as "I think therefore I am."

You continued with

But there are far better criticisms that come from those who never
bought into modernism in the first place.

ss

I might be asking you to repeat earlier recommendations, but I would be
interested to hear what thinkers or books have criticized the modern
program beginning with Descartes using classical realism as a basis
without falling into the extreme relativisms of radical postmodernism.

[J I recommend Gilson, “The Unity of Philosophical Experience” and his
“Being and Some Philosophers”. Jacques Maritain “Degrees of Knowledge”
is a classic.
John Cahallan “Causal Realism. John Wild “Introduction to Realistic
Philosophy” A text book! Joseph Owens (1) “An Elementary Christian
Metaphysics” (2) “Cognition” and (3) “An Interpretation of Existence.”

See Edward Pols “Radical Realism.” Maurice Merleau-Ponty “The
Phenomenology of Perception”. See Heidegger “History of the Concept of
Time”; “Phenomenological Investigations in Aristotle”, “Being and Time”,
and “Basic Problems in Phenomenology” and many of his other works. See
Todes “Body and World” Very important book!

These are just a few off the top of my head!]

I hope to give a theory of both modernism and postmodernism as to how
they are generated by bad philosophical standpoints basically both
assuming the priority of the human subject over being, the being of
things, the being of events, the being of people, and the being of God.[
I hope to provide this in my work Existential Foundations: Being,
Knowing and Doing. The second volume "Knowing" will provide a theory of
knowledge rooted in the being of knowing, the being of what is known and
in the being of the cognitive precesses and the cognitive subject. This
will be based on the philosophy of Being developed, articulated, and
defended in the first volume.]

ss

And we are waiting patiently for those volumes, my dear friend!

jg

As Gilson wisely said in his 1937 Harvard lectures, "The Unity of
Philosophical Experience", where he shows the serious errors of modern
philosophy are due to ignorance of being as a distinct subject matter,
being always gets its revenge on those who are oblivious to its primacy
to all else. It gets its revenge because wrong starting points in
philosophy shipwreck internally with internal contradictions, and
conflict with external reality because of failure to assume a radically
comprehensive starting point (being!) so that nothing that is gets
excluded!!!!!! Modern philosophies, all, shipwrecked because of bad
starting points that left so much out of consideration such as the human
body!!!!!!!!

ss

I found a brief review of Etienne Gilson's The Unity of Philosophical
Experience @

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/13.9docs/13-9pg35.html

jon, is this book accessible to the general literate reading public?

[J These were lectures given to the general public at Harvard University
about 1937. Yes!!!!! You might read the customer reviews of this book
and of Owen's "Elementary Christian Metaphysics" at Amazon.Com!]

Thanks for your stimulating comments!

[J Thanks for your desire to engage in discussion and the great work
that you do on fm!]

Blessings,

Jon

Stephen Shields sshields@... http://www.faithmaps.org "tools
for navigating theology, leadership, discipleship and church life in
postmodernity"

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

You can visit the faithmaps Yahoo groups web site to modify your
delivery settings and review former messages @

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faithmaps

Delivery Options: individual emails, 1 digest email a day, or no email
(all emails can be read and responded to at the site above)

Want to unsubscribe? Just send a blank note to
faithmaps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.