De revolutionibus

While searching for information about John Gardner, I came across a suprisingly high number of websites denouncing postmodernism.  These were mostly church and religious sites, and some academic ones (with educators that have some personal interest in religious evangelicalism).  These sites give lists of resources about the dangers of postmodernism (like the works of Sire, whom I've mentioned before).  Some of the resistance is probably due to multiculturalism and relativism, although the first is an inevitable fact of globalism and the latter is just one response.  But, they totally miss the point.  This is like lecturing about the dangers of a sky that is blue.  Postmodernism is a description of the contemporary world, it is not a prescriptive philosophy. If there has been a theory proposed from it that is complete and coherent, I am not aware of it.  [1] This is an exact repeat of what happened when the Sun was found to be at the center of the Solar System. The Church and traditional thinkers denied the facts of heliocentrism. I can imagine similar arguments circa 1600 denouncing the dangers of modernism.  Now, it would be silly to argue against the dangers of science (although some do, and they are doubly lost).  Postmodernism describes the current understanding of existence.[2]  It serves no purpose to argue against it.

Modernist art and literature, reaching its apex in the mid twentieth century, mourned the loss of traditional understanding, and uncovered the discontinuity and fragmentation of reality.  This sense of loss was the same as experienced by the existentialists.  They hoped for a foundation of absolute meaning, but knew that there could not be one.  These inevitable results of modernism were already predicted by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.  Underlying nihilism would be the outcome of progress and deeper understandings of the world.  But, that doesn't mean we can stop progress, we must deal with it.  Overcome it.  This is what the existentialists did. Camus went in his own direction with absurdism, welcoming the inevitable alienation and celebrating experience in the moment.  Similarly, postmodernism celebrates fragmentation.  A number of postmodern commentators have picked up on this "living for the moment."  That might be a superficial response.  But, it doesn't have to be hedonistic.  Even Camus had deep reasons for advocating life in the moment for his "barbarian gods."  This is one track we can take, but there are always more.  One is already waiting. Existentialism is a pre-anticipated modernist solution to the problem of postmodernism.  Contemporary religious leaders might be wise to turn to Kierkegaard, rather than deny reality. [3]





[1] Deconstructionism is just an overly complicated jargon-filled method of literary analysis, and Foucault's philosophy seems to me to be fairly incomplete as anything useful.
[2] Historically, I would argue that the postmodern age started in 1991.
[3] I realize that the term "reality" is dicey in this situation, given hyperreality, etc, but I use this in the common traditional sense.