POSTMODERNISM - A VIRUS ?



SEPTEMBER 15th 2004




For some years I have been carrying within me a hunch that Postmodernism is indeed a virus of the intellect. The gestation is now over and live birth has been accomplished by the midwifery of one of those books which, I think, every philosopher from lay to professional, should read. I refer to 'POSTMODERNISM - Philosophy and the the Politics of Truth' by David Detmer published by HUMANITY BOOKS (ISBN 1-59102-101-4)

The most significant part of the book, from my point of view, is the section called "The Sokal Hoax". Sokal, a physicist, wrote to a postmodernist publication, a brilliant spoof article which they swallowed hook line and sinker. The spoof began with a 'definition' of Postmodernism (which the editor presumably thought was a sound one otherwise he would have detected the hoax). That definition reads as follows :

"The dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook ....... ..... it has ..... become increasingly apparent that the physical 'reality', no less than social 'reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic construction; that scientific 'knowledge', far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community .... cannot assert an epistemologically privileged status."

That characterisation of postmodernism, given by the hoaxer, passed muster in the estimation of a postmodernist editor.

Here I am in a dilemma. I can attack the notion of postmodernism - given by the hoaxer but swallowed by his victim - by reference to personal experience. But I do so at the risk of egocentricity and special pleading.

Before taking that risk, I quote Detmer's frequent comment that "a giraffe is taller than an ant" is objectively true and not a culturally determined proposition. Any sane and sighted person, in any cultural milieu, can vouch for the truth of the statement "a giraffe ......". If that statement is not objectively true but merely subjectively or culturally true then the very notion of objective truth fades away - including the putative objective truth that it has become "increasingly apparent that the physical 'reality', no less than social 'reality', is at bottom a social and linguistic construction; that scientific 'knowledge', far from being objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it"

Now for the empirical evidence - admitting the potentially egocentric risk I take in citing it.

Some thirty years ago I was subject to heart attacks (diagnosed as being Stokes Adams attacks). A cardiac pacemaker was installed and has been replaced every few years (because they wear out after a few years) and the heart attacks ceased immediately upon the original installation. Such is my direct personal experience and, clearly, the success of the pacemakers has not been something that springs solely from our culture but is a fact of the way the world is, an instance of what, objectively, is the case.

The invention of the cardiac pacemaker is not, exclusively, a culturally engendered fact and its success depends upon real knowledge of both cardiology and electronics. It is inconceivable that a working pacemaker can be based simply upon a cardiology story and an electronics story that, culturally, we are impelled to tell. Cardiology and electronics are true knowledge leading to effectual knowhow. Knowhow confers "privileged epistemological status" on its data base

But we must be careful to note that the word 'true' has to be construed intelligently but without impugning its objectivity.

To do this, it is useful to recall the well known courtroom mantra "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Cardiology and electronics are true but they are not, even within themselves "the whole truth". We may expect to know more about these subjects as research and clinical experience unfold. Cardiology and electronics are true but they are not, even within themselves "nothing but the truth". We may expect gradually to eliminate any errors, that our present knowledge carries with it, as research and clinical experience unfold - as indeed they have unfolded - since 1975.

We may say that, for pacemaker purposes, cardiology and electronics are, objectively, sufficiently true - the test of that claim being the achievement of dependable lifesaving knowhow in cases such as mine and thousands of others in many cultures.

Here is another practical case.

Some weeks ago there were, for a few days, five human beings living in my home. My wife and I are permanent residents; my son, daughter-in-law and their one year old son were there too - as visitors. No sighted and numerate observer, of any cultural background whatever, could fail to accept that, objectively, there were five humans in the house at that time. A human product of any other culture, looking through the window, would acknowledge this objective (if you will, scientific) fact. But, and this is important, the number five was as 'true for my grandson' as it was for the rest of us (in short it was true for the baby) - despite his being so early in his acculturation that he cannot yet understand as fully as, say, I can understand the concept of human being, he cannot yet comprehend English language in any articulate way and, most of all, he quite certainly cannot count up to five.

"True for me" is a characteristic weasel phrase beloved of postmodernists. Actually "true for me that ....." is none other than a silly way of saying "I think it is true that ....".

It was no doubt "true for Hitler" (and indeed ethically mandatory 'for him') that the Jews are the prime menace to human good (and hence the "final solution") but it was not "true for the culturally diverse anti-Nazis" and I submit that it was simply not true objectively, scientifically, morally or in any other recognisable way. Hitler's view of the Jews was objectively wrong - factually and ethically. To deny that objectivity is to brand people who deny it as comprehensively bankrupt both as to fact and as to values. Look out for "true (or right) for whomsoever"; such a phrase is a footprint of the postmodernist virus. Read Detmer and experience liberation from that virus.

My stature (my height) is - as a matter of "scientific fact" - 165 centimetres approximately (in low heeled shoes). This fact is clearly an objective statement of what is the case. Of course, in a culture of pygmies I would be thought of as tall while, in a culture of giants I would be seen as a midget but in either of those worlds, as well as in our own, I am 165 cm tall.

Interestingly, Jesus is reported as, perhaps, having no truck with a postmodernist view of my height (see MATT 6:27) "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" Or would my having sprung from a pygmy culture have made me a very tall man? The fact of my actual height is more than culturally founded; it is simply true.

So postmodernism is not only unacceptable to rational default atheists but it is also seemingly contrary to Holy Scripture

I rest my case that the question mark in the title of this article should be deleted.

E.S..

HOME PAGE