Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Part 2
I've already hinted at this, but there is an 'ethical' purpose of this viewpoint. It begins with a concept you may have heard of in politics or theology before—"The Other." Political correctness is an offshoot of deconstructionism. Logocentrism challenges certainty because certainty leads to the 'power of truth.' If something is true, then it has consequences. If it is TRUE that it is 'not right' to kill someone, then this leads to a punishment for this act. Alternative views to this 'truth' are stomped on. If I'm sure Allah wishes me to kill the infidel, then I will use this 'truth' to kill you. Nevermind your alternative view. This follows the line of thought that 'truth' is 'the opinion of the powerful.' Or maybe you've heard it as "might makes right." Philosophy argues over whether things are moral because "God" (powerful) says so or because they are right in their own merit. If they are right because powerful God says so, then they are arbitrarily that way (meaning he could have said murder was good). However, if he didn't say what was right and wrong, then isn't he just a puppet of the more powerful innate nature of morality? Is he subject to it? This is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I got off track. Let's get back to the concept of "the other." Tradition dominates truth. Notice the use of "tradition." You may or may not be familiar with the term "progressive." A traditionalist is typically a "conservative" or in other words, he/she wishes to hold onto the truths of the past. What was good, then, is good now. Progressives tend to think that the past didn't have the truth in the first place, and now we're learning better ways of thinking. A lot of times ‘progressive’ goes hand-in-hand with ‘secular’ to form the term "secular progressives." They tend to remove God from things because that "old truth" is no truth at all. Deconstructionism tears religion apart revealing a poor foundation. "We must progress past this primitive way of thinking." The majoritive (I just made a new word) way of thinking is no greater than the minority view. This mode of thinking applies both to theology and politics. Do you see now how we're getting to the fall of common sense? "The other" has been subjugated by the powerful for centuries. One cannot reduce someone based upon his/her "otherness." Alternative viewpoints must be valued so that the humans possessing these views will be valued (Levinas).
So, despite knowing what is right, we pretend like all things are equal. Common sense so easily shows what is right and wrong, but we have to ignore it. We're told to "consider everything." Isn't that what your University classes do? Haven't you noticed that classes taught in colleges attempt to make no statement about what is right? They simply present everything with "no intention to lead." They hide behind objectivity, but in reality, we all see the motive. Objectivity has its value, but common sense says that you consider this new idea and actually come to a conclusion. Remember deconstructionism doesn't truly let you come to a conclusion. It wants you to live in the world of the University where the proper answer is always "I don't know." The proper answer is no answer at all. Its simply this is why it's complicated…blah blah blah. No one can take a stand for what they believe because this is to say he/she has grabbed truth and put it in his/her pocket. Do you see the application to theology? "Did God really say that? How do you know?" Do you see the application to politics? "We must randomly check people at the airport." Racially profiling is "immoral" because common sense is dead. "The fact that the majority of terrorist threats would come from fundamental Muslims isn't relevant because its possible that it could come from someone not fitting that background." Yes, this is true, but common sense tells you to check for the most likely culprit first.
I hate deconstructionism because it is 'false brilliance.' Someone who can simply see a problem in a premise (meaning not 100% unquestionable premise) seems so smart. "Look they proved his argument is worthless." Common sense gets us past this perceived need for "unquestionability." (Again, I know deconstructionism doesn't say you have to have unquestionability. It doesn't care. It just questions.) My professors pulled this move all the time. They were using the Socratic method, which certainly has value, but at the end of the day, one has to come to a conclusion. We can't live in the world of academics which is "I don't know for sure, so I don't know." Descartes did us a service with his "Meditations," but the practical part of his life was filled with things he "knew." This "freedom" of truth is what has lead to ultra-liberalism. "Believe what you want…it is as likely to be true as what Tradition says." "The other idea has as much merit as mine"…right? This progressivism of thought seems antithetical to my primitive biblicism. That is the heart of my problem with it. Does truth change? Most would say no, but many would say our understanding of it changes. So does that mean we should be progressives or traditionalists? The progressive understanding of things is fine as long as the heart of what was said in the past (e.g. the Bible) isn't undermined for the sake of "present-day morality."
No comments:
Post a Comment