In a message dated 05/21/2000 12:46:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bday@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
<< The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason. >>
if it doesn't result from reason -- can we extend this to mean reasoning --
then what does it result from? here, I fear, you might be using an
operational definition of reason that I didn't intend, because it appears as
if you are somehow dispensing with reason, even though it seems that your
argument, via your example, is an appeal to reason.
<<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)? >>
if I'm correct, the argument you've raised concerns the deficiency of
modernist critique as a search for truth. are you claiming in your example
that this critique is an appeal to a body of knowledge comparable to a bible?
I must say it's an odd example, especially since you acknowledge that no
Catholic would make such a claim. however, I accept that the above is just a
setup for you to raise the following issue:
<<"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 doesn't follow for me. it's precisely because they are not valid that
one questions the criteria by which earlier assumptions are made. thus far,
it seems to me that the only criteria that's being accepted is that the
universe was created, a point that you seem to be in accord with. the issue
that you present isn't whether the universe was created, but rather how the
universe created. and when one examines the biblical "evidence" proffered by
the mythical churchman, isn't it reason that forces one to deny it?
<< 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. >>
I think I see the problem. in the beginning of your last post you announce
that "The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason." at the end of
your post, reason has been morphed into "rationalism." I can assure you my
argument is not an appeal to rationalism. this leads me to the question of
whether or not, in your opinion, postmodernism is a system? you seem to be
saying that it is, but a system of non verification! as I recall, the
initial argument was about the existence of "Truth", as outlined by Asher --
an argument which you have reduced to "systems of verification." Asher wrote:
<<Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
construction in terms of knowledge.>>
that is, within a system of thought. the key word here is "system", wouldn't
you agree? if so, it doesn't appear that if one questions the postmodern
"system of non-verification" by employing the same logical structures that
inform this system, that one is somehow employing circular reasoning;
wouldn't you agree that to make such a claim would seem to exempt the
postmodern critique from the very restriction that Asher assigned to all
systems of verification?
joe brennan
bday@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
<< The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason. >>
if it doesn't result from reason -- can we extend this to mean reasoning --
then what does it result from? here, I fear, you might be using an
operational definition of reason that I didn't intend, because it appears as
if you are somehow dispensing with reason, even though it seems that your
argument, via your example, is an appeal to reason.
<<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)? >>
if I'm correct, the argument you've raised concerns the deficiency of
modernist critique as a search for truth. are you claiming in your example
that this critique is an appeal to a body of knowledge comparable to a bible?
I must say it's an odd example, especially since you acknowledge that no
Catholic would make such a claim. however, I accept that the above is just a
setup for you to raise the following issue:
<<"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 doesn't follow for me. it's precisely because they are not valid that
one questions the criteria by which earlier assumptions are made. thus far,
it seems to me that the only criteria that's being accepted is that the
universe was created, a point that you seem to be in accord with. the issue
that you present isn't whether the universe was created, but rather how the
universe created. and when one examines the biblical "evidence" proffered by
the mythical churchman, isn't it reason that forces one to deny it?
<< 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. >>
I think I see the problem. in the beginning of your last post you announce
that "The postmodern criticism /doesn't/ result from reason." at the end of
your post, reason has been morphed into "rationalism." I can assure you my
argument is not an appeal to rationalism. this leads me to the question of
whether or not, in your opinion, postmodernism is a system? you seem to be
saying that it is, but a system of non verification! as I recall, the
initial argument was about the existence of "Truth", as outlined by Asher --
an argument which you have reduced to "systems of verification." Asher wrote:
<<Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
construction in terms of knowledge.>>
that is, within a system of thought. the key word here is "system", wouldn't
you agree? if so, it doesn't appear that if one questions the postmodern
"system of non-verification" by employing the same logical structures that
inform this system, that one is somehow employing circular reasoning;
wouldn't you agree that to make such a claim would seem to exempt the
postmodern critique from the very restriction that Asher assigned to all
systems of verification?
joe brennan