Close to Insanity
Steven Hicks in Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, takes his readers on a philosophical journey. The following is a conclusion the author makes about postmodernism:
In postmodernism we find metaphysical antirealism, epistemological subjectivity, the placing of feeling at the root of all value issues, the consequent relativism of both knowledge and values, and the consequent devaluing or disvaluing of the scientific enterprise. [1]
The author makes efforts to explain how philosophy got to this place and how we might go forward in understanding metaphysics and epistemology. This mental work might be compared to walking through thick mud wearing boots that get sucked down with each step. I would much rather be barefoot running through a grassy field! To break free from the sucking mud and to run with ease, I thought I would call my daughter’s boyfriend who is a Philosophy professor at San Luis Obispo. Brian Looper is adept at making a way through this difficult terrain. What qualifies him to speak in this philosophical discussion? Brian has a BA in Philosophy from Taylor University, an MA in philosophy at Syracuse, New York, and a PhD. from UC Santa Barbara. Talking with Brian helped me gain firm ground as we dialogued about postmodernism. In this blog, I will share notes from our conversation.
Our conversation began with discussing an American value- Egalitarianism:
Egalitarianism is a good thing. People want the goodness of equality but they are devoid of any foundation for this. As an example, people will assert that murder is wrong; this belief comes from somewhere. In postmodernism people want the truth but have lost explanation for where it comes from. There are two options with postmodernism: 1) Abandon any moral truth or 2) Embrace metaphysical theories.
Everyone is made in the image of God and each person has infinite worth. But let’s look at the example of a parent telling their child that they can be whatever they want to be. I wanted to be a professional basketball player but this wasn’t in the cards. There is an equality that doesn’t have to do with capacity. I am an egalitarian, but I would say that not everyone is equally gifted. We are free to not have to believe that everyone has equal capacities.
Christian Philosophers/ Secular Philosophers
Thomas Aquinas was a monk. He assumed the Scriptural background while doing philosophy. John Locke was a serious Christian. He wanted to find common ground by having faith in God. Philosophy went outside the Christian Church and became a public practice. Oswald Chamber states in his book: Biblical Psychology, “We are inscrutable, but we are also built that we must introspect. Introspection without God leads to insanity.” [2]
Hume did not believe in God, he was skeptical about what could be known about the future and the nature of cause and effect. We do not observe what is going on with cause and effect. We assume what is going to happen and we project an inner feeling of necessity. This has no rational grounding. After Hume came a bunch of bizarre theories.
Philosophers began to think- I can learn apart from Scripture. They gained too much confidence in their own faculties. Descartes thought it was important to talk with atheists. He wrote a book called Meditations and the dedication of the book is to a faculty of a school in Paris. The dedication of this book appealed to readers to make common ground with others by reasoning apart from a basis on Scripture.
Challenge to postmodernists
I would start by challenging them to be consistent with their views. I would pose the question: How do you consistently hold to truths? Postmodernists do not have a source or something that is grounding their work. Postmodernists do not want to have God as their source so they may point to human nature which applies to everyone. They are silly to deny an objective basis.
What does good philosophy look like?
There are two schools of philosophy. 1) Analytic Philosophy or 2) Continental Philosophy (popular culture). Brian says that he aligns himself with Analytic philosophy as this is concerned with truth and absolute reality. Continental philosophy has a pretense for being intellectual; they try to get around God by not specializing in ethics.
Brian described Plato as having a pre-Christian view. Plato lived in the 4th century, 350 years before Christ. Plato did not believe in the Greek pantheon of gods. He would argue that God does not have to take on human form.
Conclusion
I am grateful that Brian and I can share a Biblical perspective and find joy in going to Scripture for truth. One of the conclusions we made after our conversation comes from Ecclesiastes 8:17, “No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.” Many philosophers have gone to great lengths to find meaning and provide explanations for life, these attempts fall short of knowing what there is to know. 1 Corinthians 13:12 states, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” There will be a day when things will be fully known.
[1] Stephen R.C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, 2011, p.81
[2] Oswald Chambers, Biblical Psychology: Christ Centered Solutions for Daily Problems, 1995, p.152
About the Author
Kristy Newport
9 responses to “Close to Insanity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kristy,
Wow! Such a great post and comment “People want the goodness of equality but they are devoid of any foundation for this.”
Such a good point. Well done!
Thanks Greg
Kristy, thanks for taking time to have a conversation with Brian and sharing your takeaways. As someone who hasn’t done a lot of thinking or reading on philosophy, every extra bit of perspective(especially from an expert!) is helpful.
This perhaps is really in the weeds, but how might you navigate a philosophical or theological disagreement between two people who are trying to ground truth in Scripture?
Hi Caleb, Thank you for reading my post.
YOu ask a great question. I think it would be a great challenge. I believe I would rely on asking a lot of questions. I may also want to look at different Scriptures before pursuing this conversation. I would be very interested in finding out where each person was coming from. People have core beliefs due to different things that have happened to them in their lives. I would ask questions to draw this out. I would hope to appreciate where each person is coming from and take extra note of how they have made conclusions in reference to different Scripture.
It may come to a “agree to disagree” moment where the relationship is more important than winning the argument.
Do you have a debate in your mind over philosophical issue(s) that might be argued from a Scriptural standpoint?
I copied and pasted your question so I could look at it:
How might you navigate a philosophical or theological disagreement between two people who are trying to ground truth in Scripture?
Thanks for your ?
Kristy,
What a thought-provoking conversation you had with your daughter’s boyfriend, Brian. And a terrific idea as well! As for me, I have no philosophy sources on my friends list to give a call – so this post was truly fascinating. Thank you!
Hi Kristy
Great post. I like how you often find an expert to interview to bring their insight into your post. I am no expert in philosophy, but it liked that you shared, “I am grateful that Brian and I can share a Biblical perspective and find joy in going to Scripture for truth.”
I think this is a good approach to philosophy – embark on the joy of “loving knowledge” by diving into the pursuit in community.
Chad,
Thanks for reading my post!
I agree:
“this is a good approach to philosophy – embark on the joy of “loving knowledge” by diving into the pursuit in community.”
Thank you! Collaboration can be fun! I appreciated Brian’s commentary because he simplified things for me. That’s what great leaders do…simplify.
Thank you for your encouragement
Kristy, I love that you were able to ask your daughter’s boyfriend about Hicks and postmodernism. What a great conversation. I wonder how an understanding of postmodernism could be used in your therapy practice. Do you think it contributes to the rise in mental health related issues?
Im going to pull out a part of a thought that you have on here:
Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.
One of my employees came in to work Saturday literally crying… I could tell something had obviously shaken her to her core but as a new employee (second night) I could not pry too much. What I could do: I asked if she needed to go home, take a break to catch her breath, and even offered to switch her shift from the front of house to the back.
Even though it was a small gesture I could tell she felt seen and heard. Because by the end of the night she was not better – but naturally moved herself from the back where she was collecting to herself to the front of house problem solving and doing a wonderful job.
All of that to say in regards to your comment: No one knows whats going on in its entirety unless its happening directly to them… even then do they have the full picture. All I know for sure is humans are imperfect and messy.
What I learned from my gal this weekend: If we start with grace, grit will follow. I was super proud of her and hope to learn her story as I get to know her!