THE THREAT OF POSTMODERNISM
JERSEY FLIGHT
12-9-09
(C) 2009 Jersey Flight - may not be posted without express permission by the author.    

See Jersey Flight's excellent web -site here:


http://theskepticthinker.com/

As long as civilization presupposes dogma, which it must always do, postmodernism will be a threat. Consistent postmodernism is skeptical, and as such seeks to challenge dogma. What this means for civilization is eradication without renovation. That is, postmodernism can offer nothing to replace what it destroys.

Postmodernism, if it is consistent and not fallaciously associated with Marxist ideology, is a threat to every system [1]. And the problem with simply wishing it away, or hoping to ignore it unto extinction [2], is that the arguments utilized in its favor have not been refuted. Indeed, very few thinkers, if any, have been able to provide an answer to the impositions of postmodernism [3]. This does not mean that civilization will cease, for it will go on, but always under the threat of regressive extinction and forced reinvention. The challenge of postmodernism is the required overhaul of systems in light of new arguments, or perhaps more accurately, revived arguments. For postmodernism is really an old form of skepticism that has been revived; but then, as will not be the present case, due to the skill of postmodern development, we failed to comprehend the breadth and legitimacy of the skeptic’s objections. The question then, is whether or not we can defend our ideals in light of radical skepticism? That is, arguments which constrain the rational possibility of our dogmatic systems. This is the challenge presented to every civilization in the face of consistent postmodern ideals [4].

Postmodernism represents the leaking of a giant damn, and when its walls give way thought will sink in darkness. Of course, this also depends upon one’s idea of darkness, for the postmodernist, darkness can mean light and light can mean darkness. Thus, to a consistent postmodernist (which we are not), the destruction of dogma means liberation from darkness.

This then is our contention, that most forms of dogma, specifically revelatory forms of dogma, will not be able to provide an answer to postmodern skepticism, and as such, systems will have to be entirely reconstructed after the image of postmodernism. In fact, this is exactly what is taking place right now.

The exact entity that postmodernism seeks to destroy is the exact entity by which civilization seeks to exist, tradition and dogma; this is why we say that postmodernism is a threat to civilization; mainly, because it questions the veracity of cultural and religious narratives. The true postmodernist then, is not content to be subservient to narrow cultural trends, and this, precisely because they are trends. For him these represent repressive ideologies, which restrict his or her right to celebrate the absurd, or to create in the abstract. Tradition, to the postmodernist, means oppression, at least insofar as it means exclusivity. So what then does the postmodernist want? The right to indulge, and the deification of personal autonomy, equal authority for all systems, just so long as those systems do not claim exclusive authority. For this is the only culture that consistent postmodernism can accept. Hence dogma, though relativisticly possible, will not be tolerated do to the ridged and narrow nature of its form.

In essence, postmodernism is catered to the liberation of the individual, but of course, postmodernism recreates the concept of individual. And in this sense, a sense in which we would part with postmodernism, we are being sold a lie, the thing we are taught to crave has nothing to do with genius; for somehow, even though we can’t explain it, we cannot help but feel the false exaltation, the irrational celebration of idiocy. We have been sold out. For even though we are taught that postmodernism is the liberation of the individual, it is really the oppression and devaluation of the individual.

This is true because postmodernism, like all systems of philosophy, is contingent upon the force of the collective. The community is everything, while the individual is nothing. This of course, is a hard philosophical conclusion to reject, because in essence, ethics are forced on the basis of the will of the people. Thus, the collective is the mechanism of truth and as such contains more value than the individual. This is not to say that societies function independent of the individual, or that one individual cannot reinvent or alter the course of civilization. For we know they can, for we have seen it time and time again, sometimes for the better (loss of life) and sometimes for the worse (preservation) [5]. After all, is not postmodernism a course alerting philosophy?

Let us be clear, we are not saying that the skepticism of postmodernism is meaningless, we are saying that it is a system, which will eradicate culture, by defending the equality of all opposing systems. Hence, everything as culture means the death of culture, for culture by its very nature demands exclusivity, and that is why it is “a culture” as opposed to “culture.” We might further add to the equation by noting, that what the postmodernist defines as culture ends up sounding very much like anti-culture. For in the process, the psychology, of being told that we are embracing all cultures, the postmodernist smuggles in a very pernicious anti-culture. For all men adhere to some arbitrary creed; indeed, creed is the basis of civilization, but postmodernism is the philosophy of anti-creed, except of course, for the creed of its own anti-creed.

Indeed, we do not like the conclusions, which have been asserted by the postmodernist. For even if the skepticism of postmodernism holds true, it does not necessarily follow that the ideologies of postmodernists are true. And by this we mean their strange and manifold adherence to Marxist ideology. We are being duped in one form or another, but the vital question is, can we prove this, can we answer the challenge posed by postmodernism? There are many, which are quick to answer that we can, but we doubt they have a comprehension of the devastation and force of the postmodern position. What is confronting us, for we must say it again, is nothing less than the challenge to re-defend our systems. For postmodernism presents old challenges revived new, while dogmatic systems, seem to answer by ringing the same old bell. The arguments, which helped to shape our systems, where of a specific nature, where very specific objections- but these are not the same objections facing our systems today! For we must answer anew, even as postmodernism has challenged with the revival of the old made new. We cannot mindlessly stand by and ring the same bell.

All of this might sound like a paradox, but there is something missing from our explanation. When we say that postmodernism is the old made new, we don’t lie, for these arguments, though they are old, are also very new, for these specific objections where never present at the founding of our systems. Let us say it again, the objections of postmodernism are the objections of the ancient skeptics, a system that was never refuted, which remains the essence of the history of all philosophy; a system that was ignored in order for dogma to advance. The postmodern challenge is very specific; they have revived the old arguments of skepticism and defended them in such a way, that the scholar is forced to re-question the stability of his system. For these old arguments have been applied to the present precepts of our systems, and the tension is that we cannot ignore them anymore, the postmodernist is banging on the door, he his holding us accountable, and if we deny him, then he will deny us, and we will lose our systems, by virtue of the tone of our dogma. For if we can deny the skeptic and remain rational, then he can deny us and remain rational.

So, when we say that postmodernism is old, we must also say, that its challenges are new to our systems. For us, even though they are old, they are also very new. However, the vital point, the question, is whether or not our systems can survive, is whether or not we can provide an answer? For if we surrender to postmodernism, in that we cannot beat it, then all of our systems will emerge as shadows of what they used to be. For postmodernism has that much force, if it cannot be refuted it will forever demand subservience and allegiance, and just so long as the postmodernist does not reach beyond the boundaries of his skepticism, he will have every right to demand it.

To reinvent our systems according to the arguments of skepticism, will mean that our systems forever mimic the postmodern form. Hence, the Christian systems for example [6], will emerge without the force of their moral dogma; indeed, their ethics will be considered a myth of the past. Yes, the Christian will be free to entertain the idea of morality, but he will no longer have the authority to push it. In other words, Christian morality will have no rational significance; Christianity will be (even as we believe it is) just one more arbitrary choice among an infinite number of arbitrary choices. But such is the future of all systems under the heavy hand of postmodernism, and that is the vital point we are trying to make [7]. Of course, Christianity is somewhat of a peculiar example, because the boundaries set by its dogma, make it much more difficult to defend than say, the law of contradiction [8].

In case the student can’t see what all of this means, let us spell it out, the death of the authoritarian creed, for by the light of postmodernism all creeds are equal. And yes, in some instances this would be a good thing, and in other instances a bad thing, but how to tell the difference between the two is left mute by the force of postmodernism. Although, it might be fitting to note, the more dogmatic a system must be, the more hostile postmodernism will be. And as such, being a particular kind of skeptic, we join hands with postmodernism for the demise of Christian dogma.

But what can we do to save our systems? Our conclusion… we must continually be seeking answers, for we must topple the force of skepticism if we will refute postmodernism. And if this cannot be done, then we simply need to expose, as we must with all leaps, that what the postmodernist tries to conclude (most often Marxist ideology) is not consistent with his premise [9]. And if this will not work, then we can only be aware, and make men aware, of the reality that appears to be coming; namely, the death of any culture which postmodernism seeks to invade. There is of course, also the idea of truth by force, that is, a majority that rejects postmodernism. However, the likelihood of such an event is extremely rare due to the rational conditioning of the masses through the unchallenged ideology of empirical science. This is the faith[10] that lays the groundwork for cultural destruction.

Postmodernism will always stalk the dominant narrative in a culture, and in most cultures this means science. But the death of science is not the problem as such, but the idea that it is infallible, this is the problem. For once the collective comes to see that science cannot survive the challenge of its own standards, men will quickly become disillusioned. And this is the way postmodernism works. Indeed, science, or any given dogma sets the standard, postmodernism only serves to knock it down. The fact that men define the boundaries of reason is the very reason that men will become disillusioned by reason.

We don’t seem to get it, the moment we establish criterion- the moment we accept this criterion, as infallible- is the moment that we are most vulnerable. For if we can shake men’s belief in the certainty of their dogma, then we can alter the entire course of their civilization. And this is precisely what postmodernism has done, perhaps, not conscious of its endeavors, but transpiring nonetheless.

So, have we been fools to assign certainty to dogmas of fallibility? It seems we are caught in a quandary. For in one instance we must provide an answer, but in another instance we are disillusioned by our dogma. Indeed, it is very possible that civilization will fall to modern skepticism because men are conditioned, only to be content, on the basis of certainty. And as long as certitude is the standard mind after mind will fall. But, in that we think we can resist, we are mistaken, because we think we can meet the demands of certainty, and this as our own standard of truth; the same standard that pre-conditions us to take the fall. Give us the strongest, most self-assured rationalist, or empiricist and we will demonstrate why his self- assurance will be the basis of his downfall. If we are confident in our dogma, then we are probably not aware of postmodernism, and the more certain we are, the more vulnerable we are.

The cultures of the past where fashioned after the basis of their most celebrated ideas. Thus, we can often spot the destruction of a culture by examining the implications of its most cherished ideas. Indeed, there is always a philosophy before a shift. And it is no different in our time, for this is the essence of every time. For we know the threats that are facing us by being aware of the ideas that challenge us, for much can be determined simply by paying attention to what men celebrate. The more minds convinced, that a particular philosophy is true, the more powerful that philosophy will be. We did not say, the more truthful that philosophy would be, we said, the more powerful that philosophy would be. However, the more we press into the concept of truth, the more we come to see that it is inextricably linked to power. Indeed, this is often why rhetoric is more valuable than reason.

But if we will defeat postmodernism, if we will once and for all refute skepticism, then we have no choice but to provide an answer to its most effect arguments. And until the philosopher has done this, he will never be able to logically advocate exclusive authority for his system. This then is our task, to be aware of the force, of the threat, which faces us and to respond without minimizing its power. But this can only be done if we have an answer, it can only be done if we have a refutation; only if we can somehow, someway defend a position of dogma. We did not say it could be done, we only said it must be done, that is, if men desire to keep their dogma?

Much to the readers delight we have come to the end of our discourse, for all that has been said, has been said to prove a vital point, postmodernism, or at least the arguments which sustain it, are not passing fancies, and the longer the dogmatist takes to respond the more of his culture he will lose. Indeed, the skeptic has breached the gates, he is inside the walls, and men will never be able to dismiss his presence until they can first answer his questions. Postmodernism will not go away, until men either learn to accept things on the basis of intuition, in which case the relativism of postmodernism will have completely dominated the culture, or the dogmatist can sustain his dogma against the force of the postmodernist’s skeptical arguments. We simply do not believe, or at least have a hard time comprehending, that the latter case is possible, but just the same, to be consistent, we cannot logically rule it out. For the postmodernist is always listening, he is always watching, but most of all he has questions.

For the greatest mistake the dogmatist can make, is not to posit an answer and fail, but to deny the force of skepticism altogether. Skepticism will not skip our generation, much as it appeared to do ages before, for it is a philosophy whose time has come. We don’t have the luxury of deferring responsibility; the skeptic will not let us. We have but two choices, we can either answer, or reinvent our systems after the image of the postmodern.

NOTES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The statement might appear to be saying that Marxist ideology is somehow immune or beneficial, this is not the case; for we simply mean that postmodernism will “even challenge” the culture of Marxism, which, in our opinion is a good thing.

[2] Such is the position of certain Christian scholars, “How, then, should we, as Christians, respond… to postmodernism? I answer that we should not bother responding. Postmodernism is irrational and will fall of its own weight.” From, “Richard Rorty and the Postmodern Rejection of Absolute Truth,” by Dr. Dean Geuras.

[3] There is a possibility that the position of Alvin Plantinga, though this will not warrant his belief in the Protestant God, provides the beginning of an answer. Properly basic belief, though it would be very limited, if real, allows for knowledge. However, it would be a non sequitur to jump from “properly basic beliefs” as being rational, to the concept of the Trinity as being rational.

[4] Postmodernism is not just an ideology, which confronts religious dogma, but is an ideology, which confronts every dogma. Hence, “…while it is perfectly true that in some of its incantations postmodernism makes life difficult for traditional believers, it is no less true that it complicates the life of modern atheism.” “Atheism, A/theology, and the Postmodern Condition,” by John D. Caputo, in “The Cambridge Companion to Atheism,” edited by Michael Martin pg. 267.

[5] We know the statement is problematic, for it begs the questions as to whether or not it is ever good to kill, by which we answer, objective goodness is a hard thing for any person to prove, but nevertheless as a personal belief, we think there is a time that it is not wrong to kill. A theory of ethics is the subject of another paper.

[6] We are not seeking to defend any aspect of Christianity, for we believe it is a system, which is fundamentally flawed, do to the nature of its own standards; we have only used it for an example.

[7] How strange that we fine a point, between two antithetical systems, upon which those systems can agree. That is, the possibility of truth is just as vital to the scientific atheist as it is to the revelatory Christian.

[8] There is an absurd branch of Christian’s (as if most branches where not absurd), which seeks to posit that Christianity is identical to the law of contradiction. Hence, to deny Christianity is to affirm Christianity. We think it will be fitting to label the occurrence of any such reasoning a manifestation of the lunacy on the part of its author. For we can deny Christianity without also affirming it.

[9] For in most cases that we have studied, postmodern philosophers seek to advocate a form of Marxist ideology, but this philosophy is not consistent with their skeptical conclusions. Indeed, time and time again we find the same fallacy, the non sequitur. Indeed, this is the aspect of postmodernism that we reject, namely that of Marxism. However, proving that Marxism is not the logical conclusion of postmodernism is not an argument against the skepticism of postmodernism, but an argument against trying to use the skepticism of postmodernism to produce a system which does not logically follow from the tenets of postmodernism.

[10] Indeed, Kierkegaard was right about faith, a kind of trust in the improvable (see Fear and Trembling), and this is precisely what science is, we do not say that it is useless; we simply contend that it is another model of faith. All faiths have their use.

Published 12-9-09
(C) 2009 Jersey Flight- may not be posted without express permission by the author.