There are changes afoot within the environment in 21st century America and the rest of the Western world. I’m not referring to the physical climate and its changes (although we will touch on that, I am sure). I am talking about that all-pervasive concept known as “world view”. Basically, everybody who ever shared a stake in the human community has an infrastructure that informs their thoughts. In fact, these “idealogical I-beams” (to belabor the metaphor) are no less important than the skeletons that support the weight of a sky scraper. Essentially, they are formed from our earliest days by a combination of our hard-wired personalities and the things that our culture tells us are normative. The way we see the world, its people, its sociological interactions, its religions and so on doesn’t just happen. Our “life mixture” colors literally every viewpoint that we have. A fancy word for this concept is “presupposition”. We start with premises that are usually passed on to us from our chosen cultural leaders (parents, teachers, politicians, cultural icons, etc.). We believe the claims made because of our implicit trust in these individuals. No scientific method is applied to quantify the reality of the claims they make. Point of fact is that we will expend an immense amount of emotional energy defending a position that we really don’t know why we hold. We “presuppose” these things to be the truth without any outside, objective criteria supporting them.
For example, here in America a lot of assumptions are made by many of us who grew up within the traditional American cultural paradigm. A case in point is that we assume that we have certain inalienable rights. It is said that my rights end where your nose begins. If a foreign power decided to attack our country, it is highly likely that a citizen army the likes of which has never been seen would emerge to take the fight to the enemy. Anything to protect our all-important personal rights. This particular aspect of our cultural identity leads to numerous implications. The most significant issues probably pertain to our country’s foreign policy. Our tendency to project the American version of representative democracy upon other cultural contexts may stem from the American presupposition that every human being feels the same way about how personal rights should look. It is possible that we ignore the idea that other cultural milieu may produce other perspectives toward “inalienable rights”. Within our own cultural context, our presuppositions allow us to thrive. As a direct result of growing up here, having my thoughts formed here, and having received the advantages of living here I am entirely convinced that our country offers the best opportunities for a fruitful life. France may disagree. Germany DEFINITELY does. Iraq…the jury is out…
The bottom line is that every decision we make, every idea we accept or reject, everything we hold as normative and dear are directly informed by our presuppositions. Nobody can escape this. Nobody can stand in the position of true objectivity. Nobody can separate their analytical process from the very fabric that makes them who they are. We are all indelibly stamped by our particular version of the world. This “law” influences our thoughts and commitments politically, religiously, economically, sociologically, and so forth. It determines our perspective of family. It creates our position and dedication to work ethic. It makes us who we are.
If the above is viewed as accurate, one must take presupposition very seriously when attempting to discuss any idea. It becomes imperative that we try our best to identify as many of the variables that will color our perspectives as possible. This is harder than it sounds. The value of going through this process is huge. It allows us to consider alternatives that we haven’t looked at before without emotional backlash or dogmatism.
December 5, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Great job Denny, you never cease to amaze me . . . still the same . . . always smarter than me ( : I enjoyed reading your presuppositional argument and fully agree. I thought you might Tim Keller who has been huge in my life for these arguments. He has a new book coming out: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism which I think you’d appreciate. Check him out at monergism.com for some more articles. Much of his stuff is the reason I’m even planting this church in Hollywood.
December 5, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Most modern thinkers saw worldviews as made up mainly of pretheoretical and presuppositional elements relating to an objective reality, while postmodern thinkers saw worldviews (if there is such a thing from their perspective) as theoretical constructs of the mind that did not relate to any absolute reality. It seems that this difference comes from where one starts: ontology, epistemology, or hermeneutics. From a Christian perspective Sire presents this as his working definition (from an ontological starting point): “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.” (Sire, Naming The Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, 122).
How would you handle the differences amongst thinkers concerning what a worldview itself is and how we understand it? Does my question make sense?
December 6, 2007 at 5:13 am
I agree with Denny. From a Postmodern perspective it seems that there exists a new type of Presuppositionalism, which was handed to us by Wittgenstein. I also think that traditional moderns (mostly Evidentialists) do not take the idea of worldview or language-games seriously. This has resulted in an entire culture of non-sense and confusion. This is most clearly illustrated through the intelligent design movement (ID). But, it is also illustrated through traditional modern apologists like William Lane Craig, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, etc., who think they owe something to the scientific world by engaging their non-sense. I do not owe any explanation to a scientist as to why I believe that God is the source for all creation. My belief in God (metaphysics) has nothing to do with science (physics). The bottom line is that we would do ourselves some good if we allow our language-games to naturally take over our worldview. Anthony Flew’s new book sums this whole idea up very nicely (it is a must read by the way).
To answer Kevin’s question, it seems that there is a fundamental mistake in thinking that anyone has the authority to say they do not have a worldview. Everyone has a worldview and everyone has presuppositions. Just because they do not identify them does not entail their non-existence. Even science (in its God-like objectivity) is full of presuppositions (i.e. materialism, physicalism, laws of nature and logic, etc.) Ultimately, the goal is to discuss those presuppositions as a starting point in order to have any meaningful dialogue. Let us always remember WWWD (what would Wittgenstein do?)
This probably makes no sense. I apologize it is really late.
Eric
December 7, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I am now officially excited! Eric, your thoughts strike a solid chord with me. Kevin, your question raises a number of good points. And Chris, your compliments made me blush! I recently heard of Tim Keller. I can’t even remember where. I will definitely check him out.
Before moving on to the substance of your comments, I would like to make a request. It is obvious that, within the context of this discussion, there are men who have honed their minds to a razor’s edge. That being said, it is critical to write posts and comments that are accessible to anyone who stops by. We need to be able to breathe the air while ascending the intellectual heights
! So, feel free to use the fancy vocab. It just sounds pretty when I read it out loud. At the same time, use a few more keystrokes to briefly define the term in parenthesis or something next to the word or concept. Thanks!
December 8, 2007 at 12:23 am
Ok… Time to tackle your question, Kevvy (that’s what his mom calls him…).
First, I appreciate your bringing Jim Sire up. He is, much like the apologists that Eric mentions, right in the middle of the fray from a Christian perspective when dealing with the topic of world view. His perspectives seem to be decidedly rooted in traditional Modernism. But, he is what I call a “bridge thinker”. He attempts to understand other perspectives including those associated with Postmodernity. He also appears to be committed to dialog instead of dogmatism. His book, “Habits of the Mind” opened up a new world to me in the writings of John Henry Newmann. Newmann did some highly cool things in the area of epistemology (philopsophy speak for how we know what we claim to know). Like Anthony Flew, a must read.
With that said, I think it is vital to deal with a point that Eric made. The idea of anyone arguing that they don’t have a world view, in my opinion, is rooted in what can be termed “reaction philosophy”. In other words, it is an overreaction to the Modern view of objective reality. It isn’t well thought out. Even Wittgenstein would argue that such a proposition is actually senseless (different than non-sense from his perspective…literally entirely without sense). One can certainly argue against overarching metanarrative (an objective “story” that binds the universe together) without claiming an absence of presuppositions. Those who make such a claim are standing on ridiculously shaky ground.
Don’t we need to make a distinction between popular level postmodern ideas and those formed for debate at the academic level? It reminds me of Paris high fashion. The things one sees on the runway never make it to the stores. The odd few try to duplicate the styles exactly. Most are merely influenced by them. So it is with postmodernity. Your question, Kevin, seems to be based upon a premise that is somewhat loose. It cannot be argued with certitude that “postmodern thinkers saw worldviews…as theoretical constructs of the mind that did not relate to any absolute reality”.
In fact, this thing that we are attempting to describe is itself entirely fluid and forming. As a result, definitive conclusions about its nature should be suspect. We can state things about Modernity with relative authority. We’ve got 300+ years of evaluation and implication under our belts. Postmodernity is precisely only one thing currently… a hodge podge.
As far as the distinctions pertaining to the definitions of world view, I think the subject-object distinction is the critical separator. One obvious characteristic of Modern thought is that it seeks to define reality in terms of objective, quantifiable certainties (natural laws). Of course, what with quantum physics/mechanics and such, a major shift away from seeing science as necessarily rooted in certainty has taken place. As Eric noted, the Modern reliance upon the notion of certainty as object results in a lot of non-sense in the Christian arena.
Postmoderns (myself included insofar as this goes) reject the notion of objective certainty. We say, borrowing from Heisenberg’s strictly physical application (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle…Wikipedia it
), that the realm of existence is an ever-changing interplay between subjective (personal) experience, metaphysical (spiritual) aspects, and seemingly objective factors, such as gravity and physical necessity (eating, sleeping, etc). These components are locked in a constant dance, flowing into and through one another. They are bounded, in terms of explanation, by the limits of language. Yet, even that changes. Certainty is an illusion that the human mind craves but never really achieves. That’s why we latch on to presuppositions. We require the notion of solid ground. So, we determine without reference to objectivity what we want to cling to. This is not wrong or right…it is simply human.
This forms the basis for the deconstruction of Modern ideas. Naturally, any postmodern who is at least partially introspective would likely admit that this is their starting place (implying presuppositions…). Those who don’t are probably locked into the kind of reaction philosophy I described earlier.
December 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I understand Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you try to observe a particle with photons or electrons (there’s no other way to look at anything as far as I know) the particle will move when the photon or electron hits it, so when the photon or electron gets back to you, the particle has moved, so we can’t know where it is. I don’t see why that should apply to our personal experiences and to metaphysics.
If someone tells me that he is a postmodernist, I automatically think “ok, he believes there is no Truth.” I believe the Bible is pretty clear that God is the universal constant (always the same), so I’ve decided to reject post modernism (at least with the definition that I have for it). IF my definition is incorrect, please correct it. If my view of God is incorrect, please give me your Biblical reasoning. If you see some way that the thought that God is unchanging squares with my current definition of post modernism, please present your idea.
As for the big words, I would also appreciate a brief definition of them after they are used. I don’t know them, and frankly, I’m too lazy to look them up.
December 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm
First I want to respond to Phil. What you think is postmodernism is incorrect. Just because you may think something is does not make it so and one should be careful to accept such a dogmatic position when the research or knowledge is not there to make a coherent claim. It is important in this blog to not only properly define terms and ideas (as stated earlier), but also not just to make unsubstantiated or undefended claims.
With that said let me properly define what postmodernism is from those of us who are sensitive to its persuasions. First, your claim: “they do not believe in truth” is just silly. (I should also add no silliness please.) You must understand that the postmodern philosopher/theologian has an important perspective in regards to truth. (a) It is difficult to substantiate any a priori (assumptions before evidence) claim of absolute truth. There is a difference between absolute truth and truth. There are also relative notions of truth such as probability, possibility, necessity, etc. Therefore, at the outset it is difficult to substantiate any blanket claim as you have in regards to both postmodernism and your view of universals. (b) On the subject of universals and absolutes here is my defense. I am always surprised when people who claim to have such dogmatic views of God also claim to have the ability to render him praise and honor and glory. That they have the ability to say anything meaningful to all powerful holy God. What hubris for anyone to think that they can contain such a being in the little box of their mind or language. I am sorry, but we rely too heavily on Augustine and have no concept of making proper distinctions between the infinite and the finite. This is exactly what the postmodern believes. That is, when one says anything with “absolute” certainty as our friend Phil has done with his implied “universal” we fall into the trap of linguistic non-sense (not to be offensive, but a term used to describe the inabilities of language). The challenge the postmodern would give to Phil would be: how do you defend the position that an infinite being can be perceived by a finite being. Either you believe that God can descend from the infinite to the finite or you believe we can ascend from the finite to the infinite. Both positions seem not only impossible, but there would be no way someone could defend their position outside of an a priori argument. Therefore, when you hear any association that postmoderns believe there is no truth whoever is uttering such non-sense has done a disservice to you and are promoting their own dogmatic agenda.
In order to be clear here is my recap: Postmoderns are suspicious and so ultimately reject any claim of absolute truth or authority from another finite human. They believe all truth (so yes they do believe in truth) is understood in terms of probability and possibility (there are varying degrees to any true proposition, that is, one claim can be more true than another and yet both are true).
I am confused by phils claim of a universal constant. It seems incoherent to me. Is this a math thing? Do you mean that on a standard calculus scale that God acts as the infinite constant (say 1′)? If this is what you are saying then I suggest you look up a summary of Wittgenstein’s theory of language-games. It properly shows that every language group i.e. discipline, worldview, subject, etc., has only the ability to communicate meaningful propositions about its own worldview. This sounds confusing so let me give you a simple example: Wittgenstein would argue that it is improper for Christians to make any claim of science about creation from the Christian worldview. In order for them to say anything meaningful they would have to suspend their Christian worldview and switch over to the language game of science to dispute their arguments. The reason is because it is linguistic non-sense to talk in the same language game about the physical (physics) and the immaterial world (metaphysics). Likewise (and much to the dislike of Dawkings and Hitchens posse) science has no ability to make meaningful claims about the existence of God based on the scientific worldview. They too would have to switch language games and use the theistic categories to argue for non-existence.
Real quick about Phil’s statement about the uncertainty principle. I do not defend this position but I understand why it is said. In any observation of photons we observe a paradox (further exploited by Schrödinger’s cat paradox), that light particles act both as particles and waves depending on how and when they are observed. At first people thought this was a great sign for the study of consciousness. They believed (and many still do) that the universe has conscious awareness and that we as humans are one aspect of that fact (bolstering a dogmatic position on evolution). This thesis was bolstered by the uncertainty principle. However, we now know that the earlier idea was just untrue. It turns out the reason light behaves this way is because of a unique (and I think beautiful) phenomenon, namely, particles do not just hang around in the air or in objects. They instead are constantly appearing and disappearing. Imagine a TV with static. You have all of the little static pixels going in and out creating what you see as static. Those little pixels are not just standing there they are moving in and out. The same is true about particles. We now know that they move in and out of our dimension and re-appear in other dimensions. The reason that the uncertainty principle is important is because it is explained by this phenomenon. That is, when we observe one of these particles we are keeping in existence something that wants to move out of existence and so it behaves strangely. That is why it appears one way when observed and another when it is not. This is what Denny means (I think) by his use of the uncertainty principle. And there are many practical applications that this principle has for our understanding of reality.
December 9, 2007 at 7:15 pm
At this point, I definitely don’t feel qualified to jump into this discussion; but I’m enjoying the reading immensely. Keep it up!
December 9, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Okay… maybe I have one question. As far as I understand it, the metaphysical was highly elevated during the medieval period, and the physical has been very elevated during the Modern era. Does postmodernism seek to hold these two spheres in a new type of balance?
December 9, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“The reason is because it is linguistic non-sense to talk in the same language game about the physical (physics) and the immaterial world (metaphysics).”
If I have understood Eric correctly (which it is entirely possible I have not), it sounds as though the postmodern linguistic games have disconnected physics and metaphysics to the point where one has nothing to say to the other unless it is said on the other’s terms (and maybe I have missed something here). It’s almost as if the two are unable to have any input on the other. I’m just not sure that separating one from the other lines up with a biblical perspective on life and reality. I am fairly certain that Hebrew thought (from which came Christian thought) started from a much more holistic approach to life. Would this separation disallow the metaphyiscal from reaching into the physical? But isn’t this precisely what God did at the incarnation? The infinite took on finiteness. At least that seems to be part of what happened. And then how can the physical (my body) reach into the metaphysical (my beliefs), or are they disconnected? Linguistic power games or not, I’m not convinced we can separate those two so easily… again, maybe I’ve missed something, I’m certainly no expert at postmodern thought.
December 9, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Wow…Eric, you are clearly a man who looks at the world through the same glasses I am wearing!
I echo Eric’s sentiment that our claims should reflect much less dogma and much more humility if we are indeed not entirely up to speed on a particular topic. Knowing Phil as I do, I understand where he is coming from. He is a very intelligent guy who seems to see things in extraordinarily concrete terms. We all have a tendency to hold those kinds of views. For me, the starting place in philosophy is to realize that our idea of reality is always mutating (hence, my comparison to Heisenberg in my earlier comment). In fact, while threads of similarity bind each cultural subcategory together in terms of world view, each individual represents shades of variation on those common themes. Sometimes, often even, those variables are significant and complex.
As Eric stated, truth is not jettisoned in such a construct. Reality is not merely a subjective state of mind. Simply put, truth cannot be stated in terms of objective proposition with the certainty of a proven mathematical formula. When we bring God into the equation (again, I echo Eric), we are woefully inadequate to express much of anything in concrete terms. He is infinite. We are finite. He is limitless. We are limited. He is the source of all things. We are lumps of animated clay. Of course, Karl Barth made this distinction within the scope of Neo-orthodoxy, but it seems that he made the mistake of inferring that such a separation equates to God being unknowable aside from the Word made flesh in Christ. I am not arguing for the unknowability of God…instead, I am arguing for a recognition on the part of the created, sin darkened human that God’s ways are TRULY not our ways. And that the secret things TRULY belong to Him.
On the subject of language, it seems crucial to restate the obvious. Language is precisely a container for meaning. Our thoughts, if they are to pass from non-sense to sense, are limited by the scope of our ability to express them. Therefore, our expressible perception of the universe is indeed subject to the boundaries of language. As we all know, at times language evolves. When this happens, ideas evolve as well. Interestingly, if we use Karl Barth as an example of this, many Evangelicals read him and think he is agreeing with their theological tradition. This stems from an inadequate understanding of his terminology. He actually re-appropriated Fundamentalist words while infusing them with new definitions. Miss the definition, miss the idea. Get the definition, get the idea. Use the wrong definition, and your hermeneutic (interpretative model) is flawed. You will read into his words your a priori (see Eric) meaning as opposed to learning Barth’s intent from an a posteriori (after the fact) perspective. So, it becomes quite complex to speak of, say, absolute truth based upon ancient texts when we can only be sure of one thing. The language used in the original context is vastly different from our own. This is the reason for such theological diversity within the scope of Christendom. While translations of early manuscripts abound in many languages, the theological bias written into them by their translators create a huge array of options for any given text. Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe in the idea of inspiration in the original manuscripts. What I reject is second inspiration in translations. Therefore, when Phil asks for my “Biblical reasoning”, I am afraid I must ask which Bible specifically he would like me to use…
As far as my choice in using Heisenberg, I thought I made clear that his use was entirely physical. I re-read that paragraph and can only say that the interplay of ideas with culture and personality creates a tapestry. Each individual can be viewed as a separate thread. When viewed from far off, we see emerging trends and pictures. When viewed close up, we see nothing but divergence. Hence, trends can be discussed. But certainty based upon objective constant cannot.
To tackle the physical/metaphysical issue raised by Ann and Eric, I would like to write a separate post and begin a new thread of comments. By all means, keep this one alive! KEVIN…WHERE ARE YOU????
December 9, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I just read Kevin’s post immediately after posting my last comment. KEVIN…THERE YOU ARE!!! That was fast response, bro!
I don’t think Eric was trying to create a gulf between physical and metaphysical experience. At least, from my perspective it must be admitted that the physical and the metaphysical, while immensely interactive, are entirely unique from one another. By definition, metaphysical is not physical. Therefore, while they constantly come to bear upon each other, we must be careful to avoid both terms and method associated with physical inquiry when “examining” (precisely, experiencing) the metaphysical.
December 9, 2007 at 9:36 pm
One other thought… Christianity’s roots in Hebrew traditions and world view might need more clarification. Which Hebrew traditions are you connecting the church with so closely? In the time of Christ the competing strains of Judaism were in full swing (see Wright, Dunn or Sanders). Not to mention, Hellenistic (Greek) thought was radically impacting Jewish theological formulation.
December 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm
For clarification… I’ve been writing a narrative critical paper on John 18:26-19:16a. Seminary life.
As far as Hebrew traditions, I guess honestly, I didn’t have any particular strand in mind (of those competing at the time of Christ) my thoughts were more in line with a look at the Old Testament as a whole. The writing appears to have a holistic look (body, mind, soul as connected and inseparable), even the shema has all those areas mentioned (albeit separately!). It seems as though the Jewish mindset doesn’t isolate my physical body from my mental capacities or spiritual dimensions.
Now I understand that by definition metaphysical is different than physical, but it just appeared as though our language games (as factual as they may be) has separated the two from each other to where it becomes difficult for one to speak to the other. (And again maybe I am perceiving a barrier between the two that is not there in postmodernity). If all reality is united (although made up of different components) there is mostly likely interaction between the physical and the metaphysical. That was my point in bringing up Hebrew thought, as well as the incarnation. Which leads to another question… did the infinite become finite in the incarnation? If so, how does that inform our concept of infinite and finite… if at all?
December 9, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Great Discussion.
Let me first address Kevin: You have understood me perfectly. However, your second concern about revelation is well noted (Denny as raised the same concern), so let me clarify something. First, Biblical revelation is a different beast. Kevin’s assertion is a common rebuttal for the position that I have laid out. However, I think I have one concern about the presupposition, which supports his claim. That is, it assumes that the biblical writers are trying to do metaphysics. In fact, they are not. This is precisely why we have the Nicene problem of the Trinity and why we had to at that point move to philosophy for help. Denny has indirectly raised the same concern. Denny: I want to be clear that I do not think God is unknowable. At this point in the conversation I invoke Soren Kierkegaard in regards to the knowability of God. That is, our knowledge about God always comes in the form of our conscious existence in God through Christ (existentialism). As Kierkegaard rightly asserts and Barth echoes, we know God because at some point we moved out of the world (SK’s ethical stage) and INTO the existence of God (Religious stage). Now from the standpoint of revelation we say that every biblical writer was in the same epistemic situation we find ourselves in, namely, in God. Now Barth and SK both tell us that the moment you try to linguistically express yourself you diminish the experience. SK believed you could only existentially know God. Barth believed by communicating God you revealed only part of who he is (this is his idea of fully revealed and fully concealed). With all of that said God reveals himself dynamically to humans not statically. In other words its not just the bible. The biblical authors have merely accomplished what I hope to accomplish every day of my life – communion with God.
Denny is right I am not trying to create a gulf just trying to clarify what we mean.
Denny is also right about Barth. It bothers me how people understand him. In fact, I do not think you can understand him apart from understanding Kierkegaard.
Denny is right again in his representation on truth.
“Language is a container for meaning” is a good understanding of the relationship between language and meaning. I think Wittgenstein would disagree as he thinks meaning and language is the same thing (use theory of meaning). I think as Christians we need to be careful how far we take Wittgenstein’s understanding. I think Denny’s definition is clear and correct.
Kevin in regards to your comment about language games. I think you have a valid concern. This is precisely why Wittgenstein completely rejected metaphysics. As a Christian I do not think we have to do this. The two can be relational. To use my science example form before, it is not that I cannot talk about both science and creation. Instead, I cannot make truth claims about science from my creation worldview and vice versa. I can however; say that I believe that science is right with XYZ. But at some point you move beyond the physical and talk about the metaphysical. Instead of making two separate categories think of it as one moves into the other. We must be careful about where the boundary is between the two. That is, when does physics end and metaphysics begin? I have started formulating an argument about that very question. It is not finished but it begins with a calculus I invented called “numerical ontology”. I believe this calculus shows the answer. For security reasons I cannot put into form my calculus, but I can say that it shows numerically where physicality and metaphysicality end and pickup. It also shows at exactly what point we change our language game and how we go about doing it
Kevin in regards to your last question about the incarnation. This has been a major problem for me. But I do not think it is a problem because of the rules we have put in place, but its a christological problem. It has to do with the changeablity of God and such. I have concluded (without telling you my argument) that Christ is the amalgamation of being. That in his final state he is as we will be (and should be). That in some way the resurrection is actually the bridge of being between the infinite and finite, which by the way we do have access to through consciousness.
December 10, 2007 at 5:48 am
I want to suggest a good book that may put to rest many of the concerns raised in this blog. I believe it is the best rational book written from a likeminded Christian philosopher from Ireland. It is called “What (not) to speak of God”. The other book, which argues much more philosophically about some of these ideas is Anthony Flews new book on his recent conversion to theism (specifically deism). He not only talks about his personal encounters with C.S. Lewis and Wittgenstein, but he also discusses what has convinced him that theism is true. He also argues quite a bit against Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and the rest of wannabe’s. Both books would be great context for this conversation.
December 10, 2007 at 5:49 am
Correction: “how (not) to speak of God” by Peter Rollins.
December 10, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I’ve read that book (Rollins) and it caused me to think quite a bit. Actually, its been awhile since I read it… maybe I need to get it back from the person I loaned it to and reread it….
December 10, 2007 at 11:30 pm
sorry if you already discussed this…if not, perhaps another article…
and forgive my ignorance…
i would love a “nutshell” (if that’s even possible) review of the chain…all the way back, way back, far and away back.
postmodern is post modern…
so what is modern post of?
what did the moderns call their climate, and did they take the title “moderns”?
and so, what did the pre-moderns call the pre-pre-moderns?
and so on and so on…
send me links if you know of any books or articles that might help me out.
December 11, 2007 at 12:41 am
Ryan… I am THRILLED that you are here! Your questions are written with usual panache! I will attempt to write a post that outlines the entire history of Western thought in three short paragraphs. Shouldn’t be a problem… Hang on, I swallowed my tongue…
Seriously, I am working on a post that describes the issues separating the physical from the metaphysical in my opinion. Then I will write one that attempts to summarize some of the major (and it will indeed focus on the major) paradigm shifts in Western thinking since the time of Socrates. Let me think about the books. I guess it all depends on what kind of treatment you are looking for. Do you prefer something detailed and long? Or is something of the Cliff Notes variety desired?
December 11, 2007 at 12:49 am
I haven’t read Rollins yet, but I just finished a dozen book reviews on “How (Not) to Speak of God”. I have a strong suspicion that I will be able to affirm much of what he says, at least his kernel ideas. Eric, it is wonderful to see others wrestling with the notions presented in Barth, Bruner, Buber, et al. from the vantage point of Kierkegaard. My comment about experiencing the metaphysical as opposed to “examining” is directly derived from such parallels and hermeneutics. More on this later. Kevin, what is your familiarity with the Existentialists and Neo-orthodoxy?
December 11, 2007 at 4:30 am
Denny – this probably isn’t lunch, more of a snack. I think could just be misunderstanding you guys because I agreed with most everything else you said.
My question is about an earlier post and the timely invocation of Kierkegaard. You and Eric both commented that you weren’t denying “knowability of God” in the way that SK and Barth did. But I ask – in what sense is God knowable apart from some type of Kierkegaardian ‘Moment?’ Perhaps my hang-up is that I’m not sure I can agree with philosophical deism. SK denied any type of affective revelation of ‘Truth’ (for him always associated with the person of Christ) apart from the direct work of God through. He certainly did not deny the Truth of Scripture. However, merely taken as a historically accurate document it did not have any real power to generate understanding of Christ – it’s simply a ’stone that makes men stumble.’
SK asserted that the only way to an understanding of the Truth was through rebirth in the ‘Learner’ brought about by the ‘Teacher’ (Christ). If you want to call it existentialism, fine – lot’s of things are called that. But it was definitely a pre-Existential (with a capital E) brand of existentialism. That is to say, Existentialism as a school of thought is defined by the idea existential decisions, whereas SK’s brand was very much defined by God’s sovereignty. SK much acclaimed ‘Leap of Faith’ is Existential in this sense only if the humanistic elements of his work are stripped of their theological content. For SK’s existential freedom came only through the revelation of Christ which he made very clear came only through the work of Christ within an individual (see ‘Philosophical Fragments’).
Despite some rather incinerating remarks about the use (abuse) Scripture of scripture -calling for a reformer who would do to Scripture what Luther did to the pope- SK was in fact a very devout student of the Bible himself. However, he understood that it was not head-knowledge of scriptural writings that informs one’s faith and understanding, (as I’m sure you know and believe, he made sharp distinctions between knowledge and belief). He believed it contained the Truth with a capital T. But this is only visible through the eyes of Faith which comes from God. It trips up everyone else. Whether it was historically and objectively the ‘ultimate truth’ apart from that wasn’t as much of a concern for him (though he certainly didn’t deny it!) because that wasn’t the basis of his God-given faith. That seems very much in keeping with the general sympathies of post-modern Christian Evangelicalism. Now, I’m very much open to the criticism that I’m reading my Reformed/Fundie presups into SK, but I understand where these are at odds with SK enough to be inclined to think that’s not the case. When it comes to Kierkegaard I’m very much ‘the Disciple at Second Hand’ (to use his own words). I would never try to argue that SK hasn’t played a major force in 20th century Existentialism. But taking him at face value (in the blinding light of Kant and Hegel, of course) it seems to be unfair (and insulting) to lump him in with those other guys.
Anyhoo, I’m open to your thoughts, criticisms or clarifications. Please enlighten me.
December 11, 2007 at 5:06 am
eggggssselent!!!
as far as what i am looking for, pictures books would be my first choice…black and white drawings the next…but if i have to read, Cliff’s notes (or Denny’s notes in this case) would be my choice over a tome. but if a big ol’ book is all you got, I guess i wait have to wait for the movie.
= o]
i finished George Grant’s Modernity series (as well as his Antiquity and Christendom) and it was (is) delightful. i think i have listened to it 5 times now…you’d think i would understand more, since they are lectures from his 9th-12th grade classes. i hope to go through it again…but i know i still lack major sections of the “big picture.”
i look forward to your post. thanks for giving us readers what we want!
= o]
December 11, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Denny, to answer your question, I’m not extremely familiar with their writings. I am somewhat aware of their philosophical thought. So if we’re going to bring them into the discussion (which we already have!
), it might be worth a refresher overview post.
I just got (real cheap) kierkegaard’s 2 volume work Either/Or, but I haven’t dove into them yet… usually school reading keeps me busy (and it’s not real philosophical… the closest we came was Vanhoozer’s First Theology, which I enjoyed). Probably over break i’ll see if I can crack the cover and begin.
December 11, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Keith, it is good to have you join the conversation. It seems important to clarify and hopefully reconcile your situation. First, you have to remember that SK is writing during a very hostile time in the homeland. You cannot interpret SK (at least in the writings we are discussing AKA Pseud. works), apart from understanding Hegel. Hegelian thought had infiltrated the church through the academy. It claimed that dialectic could be all-knowing. For the average Christian (Lutheran) it meant by having a particular knowledge about things would result in the dialectic of all-knowledge. (And by the way the reason Postmodern’s love SK so much is because he speaks like a prophet against the same abuses that exist today in the academy) So your question about having a certain knowledge of things is strictly a modern way of looking at the world. I do not know about Denny but I invoke SK for very specific reasons (the aforementioned being one). (As another aside I am not sure what you mean by before SK in regards to existentialism. To my knowledge he is credited as the first.) SK’s view of truth is not really my concern. But, I am interested in your claim about his view of truth because as a student of SK I have never heard that. However, in regards to revelation I think SK is absolutely right (well as ABSOLUTE as I can be I suppose). There is no such thing as revelation apart from Christ. Barth echoes this Kierkegaardian notion. Christ embodies revelation because he is the WORD of God. He brings truth and finality to reality in order to bridge the infinite and finite gap of being. He is an amalgamation of all that is being. He makes the Father known but not fully known (Barth says fully revealed fully concealed).
I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of SK’s leap. The leap is a leap INTO existentialism. That is, knowledge of God is solely based upon existing in God. Taking the leap of faith, the leap of insanity, the leap of nonsense into the only thing that is both sane and sensible. You don’t KNOW that it’s the right thing to do until you do it. You cannot make the decision based on knowledge (or in SK the stage of the ethical), but you must take the leap of faith. With that said I will say that I do disagree with SK’s notion that this religious step is the last and final step. A couple years back I wrote a paper on this very subject and noted that one cannot have a final step without adding wisdom. “The knight of wisdom” as I called my character was indeed the final step in sanctification because it is through that step that one finally realizes how much further he has yet to go.
I also do not think that SK is concerned about what Moderns call to day inerrancy, which seems to be something you are hinting around (though I am not completely sure). To SK’s credit he has a great love for the scriptures and his interpretations and sermons are some of the most beautiful and profound thoughts on scripture ever presented.
About the great reformer of scripture: I had not thought about that. And I like it. There is so much to SK yet to be explored.
In regards to your last paragraph: I am not sure what guys he is being lumped in with. Barth was profoundly influenced by SK. And SK has profoundly influenced “the turn” or Christian postmodernism (this is in opposition to Nietzsche’s influence over secular postmodernism). So I am unclear on the “leap to the lump” you are referring to. Yea, my wife doesn’t get it either. You know you just got to take it when you have the chance.
In regards to truth with a T: I would look back on our previous comments on the nature of truth. I in particular hold a very Kierkegaardian position. It seems different from your understanding.
I could on all day, but I must resist. Just remember that it is very important to understand SK in his own context and not read ones place in history into someone else’s. Look at one of Denny’s posts on his comments on Barth. He notes that many people have misunderstood what Barth is doing and saying. The same exact comment is also said about SK. A great example of that is the atrocity of the Cambridge companion to SK. Don’t buy it.
I am really sorry these are so long. I try I really do.
December 11, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I hope my last post was not too negative. I am very passionate about SK. I want to keep the blog in good spirits. Keith I like you man.
December 11, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I like you too Keith. Smart and cute…what a combo!
I, like Eric, find your line of reasoning very interesting. I want to clarify a couple of your statements/ideas prior to responding in full.
First, how are you defining philosophical deism? Second, what do you mean when you say that SK denied any “affective” revelation of “Truth”? Next, what do you mean when you say that SK didn’t deny the “Truth of scripture”? Specifically, what do you mean by “Truth” in that context? When you say “Existential with a capital E” are you referring to the movement as developed by atheistic philosophers later in the century? How do you mean that SK’s “brand” was “very much defined by God’s sovereignty”? I definitely need more clarification on your perspective on SK’s “leap of faith”. Again, I am confused by the notion of “truth with a capital T” with reference to SK. Are you referring to the modern definition of “objective truth”? Are you indicating that we somehow lumped SK in with Kant and Hegel as opposed to seeing his writings as an answer to many of the concepts that they raised?
Sorry for all of the questions. I feel as though I lost your thread. Eric’s post neatly summarized many of my views regarding SK. I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same SK…
December 12, 2007 at 3:42 am
Hey guys, thanks for reading through my blathering and giving some positive feedback. You guys are great! I think some of what I said didn’t make sense because I could be misunderstanding SK and some of it I just because I made some seriously regrettable typos… I’ll try to be more clear so you can see where I’m coming from. BTW, I really love SK but I want to make sure I love the REAL SK. When I objected to lumping Kierkegaard with ‘those guys’ I was referring to the later aesthetic philosophers, not the postmodern theologians that liked him. While I’d be pretty dumb to argue that he wasn’t highly formative in their (secular existentialists) thinking, I don’t think it’s quite accurate to put him quite in the mainstream of existentialism. I honestly haven’t read Barth, but I assume that he was mostly on the same page as SK – I wasn’t talking about him or the other neo-orthodox theologians. I recognize that you aren’t putting SK in the same boat as Kant and Hegel either – SK was trying to engage a culture completely immersed in their ideas (much like ours) I might have some of my jargon mixed up though…
I’ll just tip my hand and say pretty much all of what I know about SK comes from doing a book study on ‘Philosophical Fragments’ a while back, the copious commentary of Neils Thulstrup and some of SK’s other religious stuff as well. I’m not as familiar with his aesthetic work – maybe I’m missing some major pieces to the puzzle (e.g. Either/Or). But from what I’ve read it seems to me that his idealogical children (the later movement that took shape as existentialism- Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, and psychological existentialism with Frankl) took to him places he probably wouldn’t have gone – I could be misunderstanding them too, but I don’t think so. They aren’t ALL bad, but they aren’t as cool, loveable and fun as SK.
Your first question Denny – the line about philosophical deism was something I threw out there because I was tired and not thinking clearly – yep, I’m backpeddling again. I definitely do not agree with deism of the Cartesian/modernist variety, but I assume that you wouldn’t either, obviously. I don’t think the ontological proofs hold water unless you already agree with them, etc, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the ‘Kantian Wall’ posited that we could not know the true form of things – metaphysics proper was off limits to the tools of philosophy. When I speak of ‘Truth’ that’s what I mean – metaphysics – the stuff we don’t know. After him, people like Hegel, et al had to figure out what in the world they were supposed to do now that they couldn’t prove any real truth about metaphysics (or else lose their cool philosophy jobs), which set the stage for SK, among others. SK said ‘Fine. We can’t know Truth through Reason. We believe it through Faith.’ Is that fairly accurate?
As for suggesting that SK’s existential leanings were subject to God’s sovereignty and that he acknowledged Truth (metaphysical truth in the sense that Kant said we weren’t able to know) in scripture I could be wrong but I don’t want to take that back yet. There is even a SENSE in which you can ‘know’ truth.’ I think this is a fundamental difference between SK and some of the other existentialists. My understanding of SK isn’t nearly coherent enough for a quick and easy summary, so this might get kind of long and garbled – sorry. First, let me say I don’t think that SK said you could ‘know’ objective Truth in the logical/rationalistic sense. But he still believed in it very strongly -that it was out there and played an essential role to existence. I probably mixed up those terms in my last entry – whoops.
In ‘Fragments,’ SK sets up the precedent for his arguments with the mantra ‘Lest we return to Socrates.’ It would seem that by this he means false, illegitimate notions of the Truth based on rational arguments and so forth. Man is absolutely unlike the Unknown (a term used repeatedly for God, Truth). Reason cannot possibly attain knowledge of this unlikeness itself, and therefore must receive this knowledge from God. Man’s problem is that he doesn’t realize he can’t understand God – he is of himself unaware of this distinct unlikeness. God must make Man aware of the unlikeness before he can reveal Himself. The solution is that God humbles himself to the level of Man. In order to make himself known, God must therefore appear in the form of a servant – humblest of all men. As the humblest of men, God is able to reveal truth to man without obliterating man’s distinction.
Again, I could be very mistaken but SK seems to fully indicate that this ‘Moment’ of revelation – Christ revealing himself individually to man – is causal to man’s great irrational leap – not the other way around. (This magic ‘Moment’ is not to be confused with the historical incarnation – SK makes it plain that simply being there or knowing about Christ’s life means nothing. That falls in the realm of reason).
Faith in Christ is rooted in uncertainty and paradox; it’s when reason hits the brick wall. (ouch! @#$% you, Kant!) But it happens in response to the revelation of Christ, which is why I would still say it is rooted in objective Truth, even the Truth that Kant and them said we couldn’t know objectively. I wasn’t saying that it was based on knowledge, was I? It’s not Truth that we can know and understand in the Modern/rational sense, but it’s still very real. Belief is not a form of knowledge but an expression of will. Belief and doubt are not two different forms of knowledge -they are opposite passions.
The Knight caught in mid-leap is not rational. Now I don’t think SK would deny that he achieved some kind of ‘knowledge’ once he got to the other side. Would he? I’ve always seen the ‘Leap” as kind of a leap through Kant’s wall. It’s a blind leap, and an irrational absurd one into the metaphysical abyss untethered by reason. But doesn’t he land somewhere in the end? (and what does that even mean?)
Ok, I think that’s all I wanted to say. I’m going to proof read this now and hopefully it will make sense. Let me know if I’m close, or if there’s more that I’m not getting. Thanks!
December 12, 2007 at 5:17 am
Keith, I really feel like your getting there. However, some clarifications are in order. First, you should check out the blog entry I just made in the other discussion. I summarized SK. I explained the stages and the leap. This will help give some context and add to what you already know. By the way the reason your thought seems so fragmented (as you have pointed out) is because you must read SK in a particular order. To start with Philosophical Fragments is to jump right in the middle of the conversation. This is why it seems unclear to you. But, read my summary I think everything will be made clear to you.
Next, I think you are mostly right with Kant. No problems there. I think, although I found your entry funny, your understanding of Hegel and his relationship to SK needs some minor tweeking. Also, as I have noted earlier you must be very careful in who you read about SK. Hegel did respond to Kant with his dialectic. You were right in your understanding of Kant, but to clarify Kant did not reject metaphysics he said there was no possible way to know of its existence – he was agnostic that way. Hegel tried to solve the knowledge problem of Kant with his dialectic, which was able to show (or so he thought) that all things, including metaphysics, could be understood through this process. After awhile this philosophy had crept into the church through the academy. That meant that people thought they had figured out God. Practically speaking people had no faith. They had no need to because it all “made sense”. SK comes along and says Hegel is wrong (actually he HATED Hegel with every ounce of his being). (You should at this point check in at the other blog to see my summary on SK).
I think there is only one more fundamental mistake that is being made and it is one that many make. You must distinguish between postmodernism. Here is how it goes: you have two branches of postmodernism. The first, is what I call the secular branch. It has been influenced by the Nitzschean tradition (I think I spelled that wrong). His tradition took SK’s existentialism and made it atheistic. I do not know much more about his specific thoughts. The people you have cited as existentialists fall into this cateogory. Although, many would dispute Heidegger with you. But, I am inclined to agree with you. Today, you see many in the chicago school who follow this tradition. They also at Wittgenstein into the mix and create a robust skepticism.
The other form of postmodernism you have is what I call Christian or religous postmodernism. This falls in the tradition of SK’s brand of existentialism (of which he is the founder and president). Here you have a more recent tradition and not one that is as easily identifiable as the secular version. However, Christians have embraced SK in religious postmodernism. A huge portion of this movement is foundational to what is also called the “emerging” movement. It is also a part of what is called the “turn”. It is also part of the whole post… (fill in the blank: post conservative, post evangelical, etc.). There is also a group of just postmodern Christians not associated with either that adopt the SK tradition. The reason, which I cited earlier that so many like SK is because postmoderns feel that modernism is nothing more than trumped up Hegelianism. This is illustrated through Modernisms use of systematic theology. Systematic Theology is Hegelian. Its dialectic. Its putting God into the box of a system and explaining everything.
Finally, since you have not read Barth (which you should at some point), he is not in any “line”. He is part of what is now referred to as “neo-orthodoxy”, but as denny has pointed out that whole movement is really a type of betryal to what Barth was doing. We use Barth because much of what he said in relation to theology is very similar to what SK said about our knowledge of God. But, they have said it in their own ways.
I hope this is helpful. Please inquire further if I have been unclear, but between both posts I think I have provided enough context for us to move on to the issues.
December 12, 2007 at 6:38 am
thanks, that’s very helpful. I’ll mull on that for a while and try to keep tracking with you. Man, you write fast!
December 12, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Eric. Wittgenstein would be proud!
December 13, 2007 at 7:45 am
No problem. What would be good now I think is to begin using these ideas we have just spent a lot of time clarifying and begin asking some theological questions. I think this transition will allow us to talk about more issues with diverse perspectives. I know I am very interested in what many of you think about various theological topics in light of what we just discussed.
Kevin or Denny your move.
December 19, 2007 at 3:35 am
Prior to moving on, I would like to invite each participant in this dialog to briefly and honestly summarize their perspectives of the format and content of the above thread. We want this to be beneficial to all participants. Thanks!
Management