POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHY AND FAITH

[@RichInk]

Thank you. Your talk fills the holes among Sloterdijk, Zizek, and Postmodernism.

[@rogerhasan7604]

"there is no truth, rather many truths"- BUT THIS STATEMENT ITSELF STANDS OUT & CLAIMS TO BE "TRUTH" WHICH IT SO DESPERATELY WANTS TO ESCHEW!!

[@yuriikostyukov9068]

It actually doesn't eshew that. It is a truth, one of many. I think, today it's more about not objective truth but about personal, subjective truth. So there are many truths, one of them is that "there are many truths", which either you could follow or not: the alternative is to follow something like: "there is only one truth which is ... "

[@sophiashakti5638]

The best development of Heidegger ideas has been done by A. Dugin. The West academia swallowed the hook of neomarxism: Sartre, Foucault, Marcuse and etc.

[@alwaystheparadox]

The Russian accelerationist behind Putin? Dafuq

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

There seems to be two reactions to postmodernism in the theology described here: One which is searching for the place of, and kind of Faith for a world with multiple narratives that considers uncertainty one of its fundamental aspects. And another which is primary polemical, using the rhetorical tools of postmodernism to carve out a debatable space where one can continue to go on believing with certainty in a single meta-narrative, where "nothing's gonna change my world." That's an enormous distinction to pack into a single term like postmodern theology.

[@Bradsworld2]

I've read your brief synopsis above several times and am not certain what you are saying! I'm watching the video. Can you expound a bit?

[@Bradsworld2]

Philosophy, or at least my forays into philosophy, keeps moving me toward the understanding that Christian faith is based on revelation; and not just the revelation of the proclaimer, but also the revelation of the hearer; and thus would be rooted in the Holy Spirit (God) on both ends. But, this revelation is the proclaiming of what is and so should point to and guide us into truth which conforms to what is (reality). Propositional claims can be made within this framework. Maybe not profound, but it's where I've come to.

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

Brad Kittle (Answering both your comments in one) "Can you expound a bit?" I won't do a play by play analysis, as a scholar should, because the video is 1/2 an hour long... If it were 3 minutes instead of 30 I would. So I'll answer in generalities. Some philosophies began as theology. But postmodernism began as a mostly secular philosophy. Afterward, it interested some theologians. It would seem, at first, a poor fit for orthodox Christianity. (It might not be such a problem for, say, a good, old-fashioned Universalist...) And you hit upon it: Divine Revelation. An overarching idea of post-modernism is that there is no meta-narrative, no privileged point of view. But an overarching idea inherent in the idea of revelation is that there is at least one privileged point of view: God's. So considering what "revelation" might even mean, if the God's eye view cannot be the ultimate truth, is philosophically interesting (at least to philosophers) even though it might not be edifying (to those within the communion). On the other hand, one might say, "If there is no ultimate truth then you have no basis for criticizing my claim that there is an ultimate truth." It's an old and dreary argument, the same one that Klansmen and Nazis use when they say, "If you really believed in "tolerance" then you would tolerate my intolerance." Although I am no longer what most people think of when they think of a Christian - perhaps, if only for sentimental reasons - I still hope for better than that from the church...

[@Bradsworld2]

PeaceableKingdom: Hey thank you so much for the response, I had given up on it! Thank you. I'm a Christian who against my better judgment (tongue in cheek) loves philosophy. I'm a rank amateur to be sure, but I love reading and learning. The video was really good and I plan to listen to it a second time. Thank you for expounding! Very kind of you. Brad

[@ThePeaceableKingdom]

Brad Kittle Sorry to have taken so long. I wanted to think about my reply, and I'm wrestling with car troubles too. Arrghh! Good luck on your journey, and God bless.

[@grantbartley483]

Anyone who believes it's true there is no truth is self-deceiving at the deepest level possible.

[@RedShnow]

Lol

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

Professorial genius. Big thanks

[@kamilziemian995]

1:15 We should take careful notes from what Carig says here.

[@nathanketsdever3150]

Would be interesting to know who he is citing. Here is my quick list: 1. Douglas Grothius (?) 2. William Lane Craig 3. Hilary Lawson 4. Robbins (no first name cited) 5. Rene Descartes 6. Wolterstorff (no first name cited--perhaps Nicholas ?) 7. Martin Heidegger 8. Guarino (on Hans Gadamer) 9. Martin Heidgegger (again) 10. Star Trek and Dr. Spock (an allusion or illustration, not a quote per se) 11. James K.A. Smith (twice, perhaps from two different texts including 2009) 12. John Caputo (on games) 13. Lyotard 14. Schroeder 15. George Limbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, Post-liberalism (summarizing Wittgenstein) 16. Jaques Derrida (summary) 17. Kramer (no first name cited) 18. John Caputo (again) 19. Heidegger (summary on Ontotheology--does religion need to move beyond metaphysics?) 20. John Caputo (again) 21. Derrida (again) 22. John Caputo (theology of the event, temporality) 23. Steven Shakespeare (as a consideration of the problems of Derrida) Overall this presentation or case would seem to be heavily influenced by: 1. James KA Smith 2. John Caputo 3. George Limbeck 4. As well as Heidegger (rather than perhaps all of the post-modern philosophers) It's interesting to note a certain kind of skepticism, reductivism, and cynicism within post-modern ranks. I think any attempt to address the issue from a Christian perspective or to integrate the two should probably at least attempt to grapple with this. Steven Shakespeare above seems to articulate these concerns with Derrida specifically.

[@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD]

Good. Just a note. It is Mr. Spock. Dr. Spock was the physician.

[@skwbtm1]

Christianity isn't a debate.

[@grantbartley483]

oh no it isn't

[@grosbeak6130]

The video was ended in mid-sentence. It would be good to hear the concluding comment in full.

[@johnstewart7025]

At 18 minutes, there is an explanation of how different "rules" apply to the different activities that we pursue as individuals and as part of groups. This is true, but it doesn't preclude the fact that we all have basic needs as animals and as social creatures with minds. If we pursue great selfishness, for instance, we and those we associate with will suffer. This is just as much a fact about human nature as a square having 4 sides of equal length is a fact in geometry. Also the criticism of "meta narratives" -- that reason supposes the existence of a grand theory that could be discovered or invented to help better control nature and human nature -- itself seems to be a meta narrative. Deconstruction also reminds me of Hume's criticism of our assumptions about causation in the physical world.

[@williambaker3112]

Yes, this is a a great approach. I would add that what postmodernism contributed was hashing out the age-old concept of negative or apophatic theology, sanctioned, yes, by all the historical churches, but perhaps thus far, i.e. before postmodernism, all it meant was that we believe in a God who is fundamentally unknown and unknowable, period, there was not much more to say in this regard, so all the talk should then belong to the realm of positive theology. I guess throughout the history of the churches, the tension between the negative and positive theologies has been pretty much gotten tired of, and the former got neglected for the sake of the latter. Postmodernism calls our attention to this and that we still have a hard work to do, IMHO.

[@gamnamoo6195]

God is unknowable, period. But look! Christians of the 1st century are claiming that this unknowable God spoke in a way we can hear. Then is it illogical and self-contradictory if I open myself to that claim and try to hear what God says? What would postmodern thinkers say to my position?

[@understandeverything8475]

I am an agnostic, materialist, realist, socialist and generally find theology and idealism full of assertions and assumptions but most individuals on this channel are refreshingly honest and fairly unbiased and reasonable which I can take seriously and weigh against my dynamic beliefs.

[@bobpolo2964]

You don't believe in a immaterial realm?

[@fredthomsonthomsonf6412]

Suppose we have two freeways that meet at an intersection and everyone could bring or create their own meaning or experiences of what in this context the meaning of red, yellow, or green mean. For some yellow means go, green means stop, red means go. What would happen? If everybody adopted a postmodern philosophy/theology everyone would be like the intersection, dead, dying, or of need of a hospital. Whether you believe Satan literally or maybe accept him as a good metaphor he was the first deconstructionist “Did God really say?”.

[@bobpolo2964]

Well said

[@Steerpike-th6fe]

Which book is the quote at 3:54 from?

[@transcendentpsych124]

The video reverses the intended blurring background making the quotes etc unreadable....maybe this is an ironic deconstruction of post-modernism??

[@timquigley986]

Atheist that very much enjoys your videos

[@MontyCantsin5]

WLC blabbering on about satan at 1:22. Cringe.

[@grantbartley483]

Satan should have capital S as a name. Bad syntax cringe.

[@jamespotts8197]

Craig is a Ding-Dong!!!

[@Xanadu2025]

Need spell check on the text.

[@TioPaul1958]

It would be good if a university could spell its slides properly, and you could read them properly.

[@SirKenchalot]

Also, when did advertisements EVER just list the benefits of a product? They're always appealed to our feelings, probably because if we objectively judge their products with reason, we'll realise they're not worth the money they're charging. This merely proves we have feelings and can allow them to dictate our actions; it says nothing about our ability to reason and this is probably your stupidest point.

[@scythermantis]

It is definitely true that advertisements of the past were fundamentally different (for example, you didn't have so many ads with random attractive women unrelated to the product); Edward Bernays was a huge part of this. But to the degree that what you are saying is true, it is just more evidence that what post-modernism actually is, is primarily OBSERVATION, HONESTY and HUMILITY to what was happening already, and has been accelerating.

[@SirKenchalot]

@@scythermantis Suffice int to say my views have changed a bit in 5 years and I have learned a lot more about Bernays and his cancerous influence on Western commerce and latterly politics and I see that advertising did once aim simply to sell a spade to a guy who needs a spade though there was always a degree of 'selling' going on even 100+ years ago.

[@scythermantis]

@@SirKenchalot Oh I completely agree that there has at least since the Industrial Revolution and Commercial Capitalism been a degree of that sort of promotion going on, but an entire advertising industry, which has now even basically taken over the internet as well, and these radically intrusive advertisements (I'm sure if they had a way too they would try to make us *dream* in advertisements) have accelerated and pushed this to the point that its unbearable and unmissable for the average person. One interesting thing I have noticed between Christian denominations is that I never see a Billboard advertisement for an Orthodox Church, but for Protestant denominations there are lots of them.

[@SirKenchalot]

@@scythermantis Hmm, intersting point though the syncretism and commoditization of Christianity may only be a part of that story; Orthodox Churches are probs less evangelistic and more ethnically oriented than Protestant denominations and so they naturally are less inclined toward any kind of advertising besides basic word of mouth. Same applies to Mosques, Synagogues and Hindu temples, at least in the West, though all of the above probably have lobbying organizations and activist wings to achieve their political ends.

[@francoblasetti6997]

Misleading

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Word salad without getting to the point

[@SirKenchalot]

Wow, straw man much? Mathematics and logic do not require personal interpretation, they just are and it is impossible to survive without them no matter what level of biology you exist at. Almost all games hare basic rules such as taking turns, use of chance and randomness, an even playing field etc. Metanarratives may be oppressive, but that doesn't mean they're not true. Also, why is it that postmodernism is almost exclusively championed by those on the political left who simultaneously boast of their relativist chops while promoting a form of absolutism. "There is no metanarrative for all people... just human rights!." "Science is just a language game... except when it comes to climate change." "All cultures are equal... except Western imperialists!." Look at who is promoting this trash and ask why they want to muddy the waters, selectively throw off reason when it suits them and what their end goal is before nailing your colors to their mast.

[@timquigley986]

That was a bunch of nonsense

[@SirKenchalot]

@@timquigley986 Thanks for your detailed and articulate reply; would you care to elaborate?

[@regpharvey]

@@timquigley986 It really wasn't. Either you didn't understand what he was saying or it conflicted so violently with your priors that you chose to respond like a child.

[@Steve-dy1zv]

PM throws out rationality and truth altogether, the argument goes, therefore religion can live on within its philosophical framework (or lack thereof). A devil's bargain if there ever was one. All you have to do is give up any truth claims that could ever be used in practice. Nihilism prepackaged as belief in something or other, or "the holy other" as it were.