On Sat, 20 May 2000 JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
> in the spirit of my earlier questions, I ask the following: what does
> postmodernism presume? is it fair to say that it is just as arbitrary as
> modernism?
Modernism makes claims as to "how things really are." Postmodernism makes
a claim as to "how things aren't really," because claims about what
"really" is
> if postmodern critique shows that reason is invalid, then isn't
> the postmodern criticism, which results from reason, equally as vacuous? if
> not, why not?
The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason. This was the point
of my post. It exposes modernist reason as being based in unreason, /using
its own criteria/, i.e. an immanent critique.
Let's use another example to make this clear.
I tell you that all true claims must be verified by the Bible and/or the
Catholic Church. (Of course, no Catholic would make this claim, but let's
run with it.) Therefore, my criteria for what is true and what is false
will be claims made in the Bible and papal literature. If you want to know
whether the universe was created, we turn to genesis and find that yes, it
was indeed created. However, since not all claims are treated in this body
of literature, we make a stipulation that any claim that cannot be proven
or falsified by reference to the Bible or the Church will be considered
meaningless, or nonsense.
Suppose further that we find no mention in
either of these sources of what criteria for determining what is
true/false/meaningful/meaningless are correct: are we forced to conclude,
by our own criteria, that these very criteria themselves are not true
(although not false, either, but nonsense)?
"But wait!" the churchman cries, "You see that you can't criticize our
criteria for truthood/falsehood/meaningfulness/nonsense without USING
those very criteria to disprove them! This is proof that, even in order to
/question/ the Catholic criteria, you must assume that they are valid."
This claim is all but identical to that of the modernist rationalist. Of
course, the postmodern "immanent critique" is not the only place from
which one can criticize rationalism (or the above caricature of
Catholicism). However, it is the only way that one can criticize them
without positing another, equally flawed metatheory as filling its place.
What would happen, for example, if the churchman were to attack the
rationalist, arguing that, of course reason is not the proper criteria for
determining the truth of a claim, as the bible and the church provide that
criteria? How would these two mitigate their claims? BASED ON WHAT SYSTEM
OF VERIFICATION could two systems of verificaiton be compared? There is no
such possible system, without having need of an infinite regress:
interpretation systems all the way down. This is the postmodern
acknowledgement.
----Ben
> in the spirit of my earlier questions, I ask the following: what does
> postmodernism presume? is it fair to say that it is just as arbitrary as
> modernism?
Modernism makes claims as to "how things really are." Postmodernism makes
a claim as to "how things aren't really," because claims about what
"really" is
> if postmodern critique shows that reason is invalid, then isn't
> the postmodern criticism, which results from reason, equally as vacuous? if
> not, why not?
The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason. This was the point
of my post. It exposes modernist reason as being based in unreason, /using
its own criteria/, i.e. an immanent critique.
Let's use another example to make this clear.
I tell you that all true claims must be verified by the Bible and/or the
Catholic Church. (Of course, no Catholic would make this claim, but let's
run with it.) Therefore, my criteria for what is true and what is false
will be claims made in the Bible and papal literature. If you want to know
whether the universe was created, we turn to genesis and find that yes, it
was indeed created. However, since not all claims are treated in this body
of literature, we make a stipulation that any claim that cannot be proven
or falsified by reference to the Bible or the Church will be considered
meaningless, or nonsense.
Suppose further that we find no mention in
either of these sources of what criteria for determining what is
true/false/meaningful/meaningless are correct: are we forced to conclude,
by our own criteria, that these very criteria themselves are not true
(although not false, either, but nonsense)?
"But wait!" the churchman cries, "You see that you can't criticize our
criteria for truthood/falsehood/meaningfulness/nonsense without USING
those very criteria to disprove them! This is proof that, even in order to
/question/ the Catholic criteria, you must assume that they are valid."
This claim is all but identical to that of the modernist rationalist. Of
course, the postmodern "immanent critique" is not the only place from
which one can criticize rationalism (or the above caricature of
Catholicism). However, it is the only way that one can criticize them
without positing another, equally flawed metatheory as filling its place.
What would happen, for example, if the churchman were to attack the
rationalist, arguing that, of course reason is not the proper criteria for
determining the truth of a claim, as the bible and the church provide that
criteria? How would these two mitigate their claims? BASED ON WHAT SYSTEM
OF VERIFICATION could two systems of verificaiton be compared? There is no
such possible system, without having need of an infinite regress:
interpretation systems all the way down. This is the postmodern
acknowledgement.
----Ben