sweet post.

Thomas,

We met briefly at AAR during some reception or another, and while you were engaging then, I have to say that this post certainly puts it over the top.  It is as if you read an article I just wrote and deftly summarized it in a blog post that cuts out some 24 pages of detail without losing the guts and power.  Great work.  Thanks.

In the event that you’re interested, my pet project (and article) are available here:

http://theimageoffish.com

All good things,

Callid

Tom,

Well written! I appreciate very much you taking the time to write this post. This post brings to the forefront the kind of professor you are at your core, an attribute that I think at times is missed by many!
nate

Tom you said, “Contemporary Christians should take a “yes, but” approach to this postmodern tradition. Yes, deconstructive postmodern can teach us something. But it doesn’t provide a framework for addressing well the call that Christians hear from their Creator.”

I use a simple analogy to explain this.  French philosophers (Derrida,Foucault, leoturd) are like a bag of chips that you might purchase at a convenience store.  They are fun to munch on, but not the main course. A steady diet of deconstructionism will leave you feeling empty and malnourished. We should all be thankful that Jesus is bread of life.

Tom,

Like you said, if words are so untrustworthy, how do they trust their words to convey the ‘true’ meaning of anything?

While I appreciate the thought of ‘deconstructing’ our concepts of God to keep pride bay, it is not at all good for comfort, joy, peace, or hope. It is really depressing.

What is lacking from decontruction is the willingness to workout our meanings. Language is imprecise. It is tedious and often frustrating, but it is necessary to conversation. It is much easier to say that language is imprecise and leave it at that. Well, except for their ability to channel one of the monks from the television show Kung Fu.

Thanks Tom!

I guess Advent is as good a time as any to talk about deconstruction. After all, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.” I would say, especially those with the most theological knowledge, didn’t recognise Him. If any were in need of deconstruction, it were the theologians of 30 AD. Which of course puts the question before us: how certain are we that we would recognise Him?

Now deconstruction can never be a goal in itself, for indeed, that would leave us empty and desperate. But if might be a very useful preparation if we want to prepare to meet the King.

Tom,

Love your thoughts.  I wish I could sit in a few classes and hear you speak.  Slowly, of course, very slowly.  ;0) 

As I am currently in my own personal phase of deconstruction, I find your language helpful.  I believe the ambiguous nature of words is a graceful gift from our Creator, so that each creation is invited to seek his Creator in his own construct.  Perhaps post-modern theology will find some way to acknowledge each person’s paradigm , clarify truth, and accomplish that without trying to control how that “should look”.

Tom, I would like to hear more on your critique. Your, “Yes, but” understanding. I tend to be one with a foot in each mindset. As a postmodern I understand that objectivity can never be captured and yet as a modern I still believe it is what should be sought. I am suspicious of all interpretations but I know some are better than others.

Thanks to all for your comments!  I’ll respond briefly…

Tripp: Thanks!

Callid: Love your website!  Thanks for the compliment on my article.  Which pomo article on your site were you referring to? I’d like to read it.

Nate: Thanks for the kind words.

Bob: Sounds like you and I both find some things to like and some things not to like.

Dave: Great comments. Language is imprecise, but it remains a powerful tool for communicating, even if inexactly.

Hans: I love your advent take!  Thanks!

Doug: Sounds like we share a common quest.  And we agree that some interpretations are preferable to others.  Thanks!

Curtis: I’ve written more on this in other contexts.  In fact, you can probably find a more thorough explanation and critique I’ve written if you google my name and “postmodern.”  That piece I wrote has been used in several dissertations.

Thanks again to all!

On the charge against deconstruction of being relativistic and each individual determining their own truth, I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure exactly where, but I’ve heard John Caputo talk at length about how deconstruction inherently involves an un-deconstructable, and Derria identified it as Justice. Justice, for Derrida (explained by Caputo), is more or less guided by this un-deconstructable principle, and without it deconstruction would be impotent. I could be mis-remembering or misunderstanding, but one of my professors also mentioned something like this. It seems that Derrida was far (OK maybe not THAT far)from a relativistic thinker.

Bo,

Thanks for the comments.  I wrote a reivew of Jack’s book on WWJD.  You might be interested in it:

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/10299/Default.aspx

I agree that Derrida didn’t want to be extremely relativistic.  That’s one reason he wrote passionately about the importance of hospitality near the end of his life. 

My argument is that there are no grounds or bases in Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy to support his desire to promote hospitality.

Thanks again for posting!

Tom

While I recognize the futility of absolute relativism, I see an important distinction between “everything is right” and “everyone creates their own reality”.  The latter statement, representative of Kantian perspectivism, seems both logical and accurate.  Everyone has a unique set of circumstances and, therefore, is bound to see the world in a slightly different way.  This does not mean that whatever a person believes accurately represents reality.  Some beliefs are clearly more accurate than others - as demonstrated by contextual criticism. 

In sum, I don’t believe that deconstructive post-modernism tries to point as much towards relativism as it does towards perspectivism.

Dr. Oord,

I would agree that deconstructive postmodernism ough not be a primary source of inspiration.  Language’s flaws do not negate language’s ability to communicate meaning.  Despite how witty Derrida and other deconstructionists appear when they pull the rug out from beneath everyone (including themselves) they still invest meaning in what they intend to say.  Deconstrucion can only stand as a check on the power of language or logic; it cannot refute clear speaking.

I thinke G.E. Moore was right in his skepticism of skepticism.  I am safe in assuming that Derrida dithered with clear speaking once or twice - the burden of proof then is on those who insist that they do not have to be methodologically rigourous in their interpretation of the world.  There are no deconstructionists in foxholes; and if we are serious about our beliefs we should apply the language we have in an attempt to be truthful.  That of course does not mean we ignore flaws in language; it means we don’t exploit them to make nonsensical claims.  I can’t lambaste ethics and theology for being entirly fanciful, but simply because they are so prone to fancy they should be epistemically compatibile with other fields of knowledge, rather than treat uncertainty as liscence to believe as one wishes and hold that uncertainty as permanent.

deconstruction essentially says that there is no language…only makeshift conventions. no education…only pitchers filling other pitchers which in turn fill other pitchers ad infinitum. and also that there is no truth…only truths which could be a million and one in number and take an infinity of forms and de-signs. life itself is but the veil of illusion - maya - and hence a big fat lie (although i must say a precious resource nevertheless due to its transiency). literature itself as the litter of human nature. the garbage and refuse of human minds in processed consumable sausage form.

I really like what you have said in this posting. I think everyone should take the “yes, but” stand. This gives a new light to what we believe and how we should live our lives.