Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Why I might be a post-modernist

Forgive me friends, but I can't help but still ponder the question of truth and it's definition. What can we know? Is anything absolute or universal, or is it strictly relative to each individual's experiences? These, quite possibly, are questions that cannot be fully answered. However, for the sake of writing something just to keep this dying sport of blogging alive, I must share my opinions. For the longest time, I can remember believing in absolute truth. Something that is universal, in which, all the world can clearly see as such. Perhaps it has alot to do with my up-bringing, perhaps other factors or conditions were involved as well, but I stood strong in the fact that there was truth that was unshakable, unmovable, and undeniable. Now, I'm not so sure. My life has taken different turns and as I have grown up, I've noticed how much each experience along the way effects my life and how I view it. I've started to reflect on my pass and discovered why I believed some of the things I believed, and why I believe what I do now. Is it all subject to change? Of course, which kind of leads me to my theory. That is, it would seem to me that life brings with it conditions and experiences, which, in turn, shape our very existence and provide us with the things that we can know, or call truth.

I explained in a blog earlier as to why I see truth as relative to our experiences, so I won't go too deeply into that, however, I will simply reiterate that each experience that effects our lives points us in a direction and causes us to believe or see something about the world that we may or may not have seen before. Each of us, as individual's, have different experiences and conditions that are personal, effecting us differently than they might someone else. Even sometimes people who have the same conditions and experiences as one another can be effected in completely different ways. Both discover their own truths that they can relate back to those experiences and conditions. Therefore, I tend to be skeptical about whether we can know if a truth is absolute. Now, I am not arguing against the existence of absolute truth. It very well may exist and, in fact, I would hope it does, inorder that we would not be left to what would eventually lead to utter chaos and confusion. I am simply arguing that we cannot know! If one believes that something is an absolute or universal truth, they believe that because of some life- changing experience that effected them, personally. Could not somebody else have an experience that drastically effects their life and causes them to believe something different? Is either belief more universal than the other? Certainly not. It would seem arrogant for one to assume that their truth, which they came by through a personal experience, is somehow universal, and that someone else should accept their truth, even if their experiences led them somewhere else.

I guess my point is I don't think we can know. We can believe with all of our hearts, but we can't really ever know. Okay, my brain hurts. I hope this made some sense and even if you vehemently disaggree, and are starting to plan the intervention as we speak, I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. I guess the interesting thing about labels and views are that they can change at any moment. We are continuously evolving in our thinking and I suppose that one day, my skepticism could turn into utter assurance. You never know:)

5 Comments:

Blogger Jordan said...

Hey Brent, I haven't seen you in ages! I hope your doing well. I love that you bring up philosophical questions on your blog. I have a lot of sympathy for the post-modern view point. I love to read their works, and I often find lots of insight into the world through Levinas, Derrida and Lyotard.

However I don't think we have much of a choice in our in whether or not we can belive in absolute truth. We do. In your own arguement you state quite resolutely that we cannot know absolute truth, and therefore anyone who claims that they do is wrong (I think that follows from what your saying). How is this much different from others who say if you don't agree with them your wrong?

By virtue of holding a belief don't we believe that its true on a broader baisis than we alone experience it. Don't we think we discover things about the world?

I love your post brother. Please argue with me.

8:57 AM  
Blogger herringmeister said...

Well said bro! It seems as if you have thought through this thing and articulated it better than any of my college professors. This is indeed touches on a very deep and foundational topic. It’s one that “pulls your existential shorts” (where all our fundamental beliefs become revealed!). This is a topic that deserves a careful and thorough examination --something to chew on and digest slowly. If I understand your post, you are not sure if we can have ‘real knowledge’ if we don’t have absolute, comprehensive, immutable knowledge. I was wondering what you thought of Poythress’ idea of the validity of multiple perspectives among beings created to function with limited, finite, discursive reasoning? It seems like his ‘symphonic’ approach has direct bearing on the fact that all of our various and changing perspectives are shaped by our differing experiences and allows our subjective knowledge to be ‘real’ knowledge, if in fact, the symphony has a Conductor. Anyway, it’s great to see you bloggin’. I am reminded that I have not posted for a couple of years now. How time flies. Looking forward to more on this.

2:55 PM  
Blogger Brent Hitman said...

Wow, guys thanks alot for the comments. I really appreciate your inciteful commentary. You both brought up interesting critique's so I'll do my best to address them. Jordan, I'll start with you. First off, I think I should read one of the philosophers you mentioned. Sounds interesting. As far as your answer to my argument, I guess I would say the person who believes in absolute truth does so because of some personal experience that changed their life, therefore, making it concrete and valuable, but not necessarily universal or absolute. The truth is very real and very important to them, as it should be, but I think, if they were to look at the source of that truth, they would find it to be some condition that was relational to their own, personal life experience. It is hard to get around the "thinking someone is wrong for not aggreeing with you" part. I guess I would just want someone to really consider why they believe something as truth, and then decide if they can really call it universal.
As far as your second part, I think you bring up a great question. After all, how strong can a belief really be if it is strictly tied to only one's own experiences? I think I might have to tip my tweed hat to you on this one. I think our beliefs can be molded, shaped, changed, by a broader spectrum, (mainly witnessing other individual experiences), than just our own experiences. However, I still feel that the basis or foundation for what we see as true and how we see the world comes back to our own experiences. I hope I answered what you were getting at, if not, let me know, and by all means, if you feel so inclined, argue back:)
As for you, David. First off, I love the "existential shorts" comment. Very humorous. To address your comment, I didn't want to state the we couldn't have real knowledge without something absolute. If it came across that way, I apologize. In fact, I wanted to convey that we can have real knowledge. Knowledge that is very important and valuable to each individual, but that we can't know if it is universal, or concrete for all of humanity. I thought Poythress did make an interesting point about the validity of multiple perspectives. However, he assumes that God is controlling the world and that He is the absolute truth. I think I'm still a bit skeptical as to whether we can know of God's existence as an absolute truth, as opposed to some personal experience that led us to our belief in God. I hope I covered your question as well. Thanks alot for these comments guys. I find this to be a fascinating topic to think about and even more fascinating to discuss. Talk to you soon!

4:04 PM  
Blogger John G said...

Brent! I miss you (and the rest of you too, having a baby really chips away at your free time!). Although Jordan and David have already said some of the things I thought of when reading your post, I'd like to add a bit as well.

I think you are conflating our individuality with the universality of truth. These are two seperate concepts. It's easy to see why though; with our modern cookie-cutter "christian" culture we DO embrace a watered down homogeneity where most people are upper middle class white folks with a solid christian upbringing, a good education, and a distinct lack of rhythm...... you know the type. But the real world is so much different (and better!) than that.

I believe God values our unique perspectives, and uses our experiences (even the ugly stuff before we knew Him) to bless those around us. Just look at Zacchaeus, Lazarus, Paul, the centurion from Matthew 8 (who wanted Jesus to heal his slave), the other centurion from Acts (Cornelius, the first gentile to become Christian), etc. They all had their own unique perspective that God not only accepted, but actually honored in one way or another. God used each of them in powerful ways, often times incorporating their past into their ministry.

Christ says (Luke 12) that there are higher expectations for "the one who has been entrusted with much". God is merciful and loving, and He knows our history and our personality better than even we do. It stands to reason that He knows when our faith is weak, and those of us who have struggled arduously with faith have felt God's mercy in our lives many times.

And in the end, Faith is just that: faith. If it was certainty, if we could touch it and box it up and put it on a shelf for later use, it would not have the same denouement. If we had absolute knowledge that God's existance is a universal truth, then there would be no room for faith. An example: I have faith that my wife loves me; but I can't prove that as a universal truth. My experience leads me to believe it is true. Your experience as an outside observer hopefully confirms it as well based on what you know about our lives together. But how would one begin to really quantify it? Someone else might see some aspect of our relationship and think "She doesn't really love him, she's just with him because he provides for her, or because he is impossibly handsome...." this might be the "truth" from their perspective, and what could I do to really change their mind? How can I prove an intangible thing like Love? Yet one view or the other must indeed be the real truth.

All of this is my weak attempt to help you make sense of the way you are feeling. Believe me I've been there and know how it is to have thing unravel, things that may have been rock solid yesterday but today they are squishy and undefined. Just know that we all love you (even if we can't prove it objectively!) and that we are here for you in our various capacities, for whatever your need.

1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
Dismiss Sluggish Downloads Using NZB Downloads You Can Quickly Find High Quality Movies, PC Games, MP3 Singles, Applications & Download Them at Maxed Out Rates

[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]NZB[/B][/URL]

8:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home