tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post1315648242020079715..comments2023-12-08T04:43:40.135-06:00Comments on The Fire and the Rose: Problems with postmodernismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-30553779500209134782008-07-29T16:43:00.000-05:002008-07-29T16:43:00.000-05:00David,While I would agree with Danny over how Smit...David,<BR/>While I would agree with Danny over how Smith isn't trying to dehistoricize 'post-modernity' I do see a valuable insight in your post. Interestingly enough, I think an analogous situation (the difference might outweigh the similarity though) might be present in America's definition of terrorism in the 'war on terror'. The fact that the semantic-range of terrorism has come to include such disparate organizations as Palestine Liberation Front, HAMAS, Continuity Irish Republican Army, and Shining Path points to this. These organizations come from very different geo-political, economic, and social realities; yet they are all included in the ever expanding definition of terrorism. Hence, this might be another case of a word being emptied of its meaning due to a particular 'social imagination's' desire to impregnate it with whatever it hates.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-27084572564277246592008-07-25T09:58:00.000-05:002008-07-25T09:58:00.000-05:00You seem to have the resources to answer your own ...You seem to have the resources to answer your own question within your post. Augustine and Pascal are inspirations to but are not among the postmodern because postmodernism is so reactively defined by modernism -- Augustine managed to influence Aquinas and the Reformers without himself being a Thomist or Protestant, after all.<BR/><BR/>The hermeneutic of suspicion and the (attempted) breaking down of so many dualisms are certainly characteristic of "postmodernism;" so "postmodernism" for you post may just be this class of reactions against modernism. It hasn't really escaped modernism, of course -- after all, YouTube is quite "postmodern" but involves nothing like an embodied anthropology -- but that's why "modernism" still appears as the suffix in the name.<BR/><BR/>But I think what you're really getting at is that "postmodernism" doesn't have a new worldview that replaces those of modernism, and that's true as far as I can see. I don't think we've yet been able to break out of the world of, say, Kant.<BR/><BR/>Peace to you.John Robersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12250225216058559780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-62401717494967856932008-07-24T15:07:00.000-05:002008-07-24T15:07:00.000-05:00Hey David,I don't think anyone wants to call Augus...Hey David,<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone wants to call Augustine postmodern per se; Smith (I think) would affirm that Augustine is a premodern. He sees certain premodern thinkers as anticipating (to some degree) certain developments in postmodern thought; e.g. Augustine's beliefs on rightly ordered loves are, in some ways, parallel to Heidegger's insight that the human being is, "essentially," being-in-the-world. Augustine's anticipation of this insight does not mean he was postmodern; everyone knows that Augustine prioritized soul over body in ways Heidegger found unacceptable. Arguably Heidegger himself wasn't a postmodern, though I have no idea what Smith would say about that.<BR/><BR/>My point is, Smith and others who see postmodern philosophical insights anticipated in earlier thinkers aren't committed to (and usually don't, in my experience) labeling such thinkers postmodern, and hence aren't committed to dehistoricizing the movement.<BR/><BR/>At this point I think it's important to distinguish postmodernism from postmodernity. The former is often (and I think should) be used to refer to the intellectual movement of postmodernism, which is identifiable, though of course not easily or neatly. Postmodernity is/could/I think should be used to refer to the broader issues related to our "postmodern age." In the latter sense, I agree with you. More or less, "we" are still moderns. But that does not mean that there is no intellectual movement called postmodernism which is characterized by a rejection of some central modern claims, e.g. the rejection of metanarratives founded on universal reason, strong epistemological foundationalism, mind/body dualism, and the like. It's not a tidy picture, to be sure, but it has nothing to do with whether new atheists are still going around championing metanarratives, or if theologians are focusing on the doctrine of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-23255369310764292622008-07-24T12:15:00.000-05:002008-07-24T12:15:00.000-05:00Though I am not advocating our present predicament...Though I am not advocating our present predicament as 'postmodern' I do think it is okay to acknowledge the crises experienced in art (representation), literature (meaning), theology (historical criticism), and even science (instability of place) that emerged in the twentieth century. These disciplines needed to wade in chaos for a time and did emerge somewhat differently, often rediscovering older narratives. However, on the cynical side western capitalism and science has largely rolled on unhindered by these experiences. In many ways creating a new epoch was just another market creation.<BR/>I am not greatly troubled by an increasingly ahistorical use of 'postmodernism'. I always simply looking for good work. I suppose what does concern me is the way this movement, perhaps expressed in the EC proliferates 'new' expressions of theology and church that do not any longer have a grasp on the contributions of the 'modern' period but are only used to tell the story of postomdernism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17045950595392790139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11393723.post-89769058906298646492008-07-24T09:14:00.000-05:002008-07-24T09:14:00.000-05:00"the postmodern worldview"I have read a lot of the..."the postmodern worldview"<BR/><BR/>I have read a lot of theory that has either been labeled "postmodern" (e.g. Derrida, Foucault) or is unabashedly postmodern (e.g. Baudrillard). I am not convinced there is anything such as a postmodern worldview. I think it has become a construct in order for people to differentiate themselves from any social structures that maintain a set of non-negotiable truths that are exocentric and immutable (e.g. a set of assumptions that we can very generally characterize as modern).<BR/><BR/>What sounds like a postmodern view is, I think with Habermas, a thread of self-critical reflection that is a cornerstone of modernism. What emergents call postmodern is in fact a practice ot taking a few ideas here and there and finding ways to apply them (non-hierarchical worship for one).<BR/><BR/>But the continual idea of postmodernism comes out as being rather anemic becuase it has no real means to re-structure reality. Deconstruction is good for a critical method, but in the end it does nothing to rebuild anything. This is the practical problem in any postmodern theorizing that I have written on quite a bit in the past.<BR/><BR/>In my judgment, the emergent language tends to look at postmodernism as a form of ambiguity. Hence, McLaren, Jones and others use almost intentionally evasive language that refuses to stand in convicted claims about reality. This is why I think both critical theory and pragmatism, which are both thoroghly modern - including Rorty - are correctives and means to make any postmodern discourse actually work.<BR/><BR/>You can read my critique of exactly this issue here: http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/15/interrogating-the-emergent-church-part-1/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com