Should deconstructionism be tolerated?

[Autumnleaf]

What some do is attack attack attack. They attack marriage and other social norms. They attack and ridicule things that have kept society stable and undermine it. They tear down and never build up. They are paid for by people like George Soros and other wealthy people that want to undermine the structure of society so they take from society and more easily control society.

Should society tolerate such attacks or should it fight back?

One of the nasty things about these attacks is they use things like free speech to attack and then they take away your right to free speech. The Frankfurt school called it Critical Theory and its been very effective in free societies to tear things down and open them up to various manipulations.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Well, societal "norms" change over time. 100 years ago, women could not vote nor could they own property. 50 years ago women could not have credit in their own names and needed a husband's permission to open a bank account. 200 years ago, there was no indoor plumbing or electric light.

Those were the "norms" of the time. Things change. That's what they do. Most folks want to go forward and move towards a more egalitarian society rather than reverting back to a pyramid society where white, landowning males had the power and everyone else, in one form or another was powerless.

 

[Nithavela]

For things to change, you need people who tear the old things down and those that build new things up. Sometimes, nothing needs to be rebuilt in place of something old. We don't need something new to replace antisemitism, racism or jingoism.

 

[Shemjaza]

One person's opinion of "attacking long term supports of society" is another person's "fixing long term mistakes of society".

 

[joshua 1 9]

200 years ago, there was no indoor plumbing or electric light.

Back in the good ol days.

 

[durangodawood]

Should deconstructionism be tolerated?

Not sure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What some do is attack attack attack. They attack marriage and other social norms. They attack and ridicule things that have kept society stable and undermine it. They tear down and never build up. They are paid for by people like George Soros and other wealthy people that want to undermine the structure of society so they take from society and more easily control society.

Should society tolerate such attacks or should it fight back?

One of the nasty things about these attacks is they use things like free speech to attack and then they take away your right to free speech. The Frankfurt school called it Critical Theory and its been very effective in free societies to tear things down and open them up to various manipulations.

One thing to keep in mind is that Modernism, the alternative to Postmodernism, has not exactly been the friend of Christianity either and has done its own critical deconstruction. Another thing is that both Modernism and Postmodernism are cut from the same philosophical cloth of "man trying to go it alone." It's just that the latter philosophical framework has been more Elitist, and the former more for the Grassroots Masses--but both have always been about criticizing (and liberating society from) the Church (or other perceived tyrannies).

In addition to all of this, has it not also been the province of the Biblical Prophets to make stinging, "deconstructive" criticisms upon various societies, at times even upon their own?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave-W]

So go with "pre-modernism," or the New Covenant faith BEFORE the Greek influence took over.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

What some do is attack attack attack. They attack marriage and other social norms. They attack and ridicule things that have kept society stable and undermine it. They tear down and never build up. They are paid for by people like George Soros and other wealthy people that want to undermine the structure of society so they take from society and more easily control society.

Should society tolerate such attacks or should it fight back?

One of the nasty things about these attacks is they use things like free speech to attack and then they take away your right to free speech. The Frankfurt school called it Critical Theory and its been very effective in free societies to tear things down and open them up to various manipulations.

I'm personally a big fan of Critical Theory and Deconstruction, because I think it's intellectually honest. I do realize it's destructive to our society, but it shows what we're up against. More specifically, it shows us how desperately we're in need of God and Christ as purpose and salvation.

Critical Theory essentially destroys what I like to call pretend-Christianity, moralistic Christianity, Christless Christianity. It makes people take a side, and understand how meaningless anything is without God.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

One thing to keep in mind is that Modernism, the alternative to Postmodernism, has not exactly been the friend of Christianity either and has done its own critical deconstruction. Another thing is that both Modernism and Postmodernism are cut from the same philosophical cloth of "man trying to go it alone." It's just that the latter philosophical framework has been more Elitist, and the former more for the Grassroots Masses--but both have always been about criticizing (and liberating society from) the Church (or other perceived tyrannies).

In addition to all of this, has it not also been the province of the Biblical Prophets to make stinging, "deconstructive" criticisms upon various societies, at times even upon their own?

2PhiloVoid

I would argue that Postmodernism is not a philosophy at all, but rather a method. Its very being is directionless and it has no God. I think this is what the Left misunderstands about postmodernism: it's basically a very subtle mockery of liberal ideals. It's a very subtle mockery of everything, really.

I would also argue that Postmodernism is cut from the ashes of modernism. While Modernism was about liberating society from the Christian Church, postmodernism is liberating society from the Modernist Church. Postmodernism does not liberate, it inevitably describes that society is destined for stockholm syndrome.

 

[BryanMaloney]

What some do is attack attack attack. They attack marriage and other social norms. They attack and ridicule things that have kept society stable and undermine it. They tear down and never build up. They are paid for by people like George Soros and other wealthy people that want to undermine the structure of society so they take from society and more easily control society.

Should society tolerate such attacks or should it fight back?

One of the nasty things about these attacks is they use things like free speech to attack and then they take away your right to free speech. The Frankfurt school called it Critical Theory and its been very effective in free societies to tear things down and open them up to various manipulations.

Tolerate is not the same as sit back and be rolled over. Of course, a proper defense against such "attacks" doesn't mean that you have to, yourself, turn into just as nasty a pig.

 

[BryanMaloney]

One thing to keep in mind is that Modernism, the alternative to Postmodernism, has not exactly been the friend of Christianity either and has done its own critical deconstruction. Another thing is that both Modernism and Postmodernism are cut from the same philosophical cloth of "man trying to go it alone." It's just that the latter philosophical framework has been more Elitist, and the former more for the Grassroots Masses--but both have always been about criticizing (and liberating society from) the Church (or other perceived tyrannies).

In addition to all of this, has it not also been the province of the Biblical Prophets to make stinging, "deconstructive" criticisms upon various societies, at times even upon their own?

2PhiloVoid

Please demonstrate, with examples, that the only alternative to Postmodernism is Modernism. You indulge in the fallacy of the false dilemma. There are more approaches than Postmodernism and Modernism.

 

[BryanMaloney]

If we want some context, we can look at it historically. One place to start would be a crude, provisional timeline:

Greek: 600-300BC
Hellenistic/Roman/Patristic: 300BC-AD400
Late-and-Post-Patristic: AD500-AD1000
(Proto)-Scholastic: AD1000-1400
(Proto)-Humanist: AD1400-1500
(Proto)-Natural Law/Rational: AD1500-1700
(Proto)-Enlightenment: AD1700-AD1800
Romanticism: AD1800-1850
Modernism: AD1850-1920
Postmodernism: AD1920-present

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please demonstrate, with examples, that the only alternative to Postmodernism is Modernism. You indulge in the fallacy of the false dilemma. There are more approaches than Postmodernism and Modernism.

Actually, it wasn't my intention to present a dilemma, whether false or factual, BM. My underlying point, if I didn't make it clear enough, is that Autumnleaf seems to imply in the OP that "deconstruction" or Critical Theory in general has little value in and of itself

Of course, there are other positions. So, please take this as a clarification--all I'm intending to do is to indicate to Autumleaf that I think some aspects of Postmodernism and/or Critical Theory can be useful. There are some Christian theologians who take this point of view, with John D. Caputo and James K.A. Smith being a couple of them. It's not as if Post-modernism is the end all of man's depradation of the Church, or of those things in Western Society that we Christians like to value, or think we value.

What other approaches do you think I should have mentioned in regard to how we evaluate the principles and structures of our society? Pre-Modernism? Structuralism? Anything specific?

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would argue that Postmodernism is not a philosophy at all, but rather a method. Its very being is directionless and it has no God. I think this is what the Left misunderstands about postmodernism: it's basically a very subtle mockery of liberal ideals. It's a very subtle mockery of everything, really.

Well sure, ShaulHaTaris. I agree--it reflects the seedling idea created by Marx himself that the work of the Philosophers (political and social in this case) should not be to just clarify ideas, but to "change the world." And according to this Marxian inclination, during those times when the bourgeoisie have used more Modernist views and approaches to engineer society, those belonging (or who feel stuck in) the proletariat have felt left out along the way, and take it upon themselves to then move along the social leveling processes.

I would also argue that Postmodernism is cut from the ashes of modernism.

Yes, I agree with this too.

While Modernism was about liberating society from the Christian Church, postmodernism is liberating society from the Modernist Church. Postmodernism does not liberate, it inevitably describes that society is destined for stockholm syndrome.

That's an interesting view that I'm not sure of; some of this will depend upon which Postmodernist is being relied upon for one's praxis. I've known some fellow students of philosophy who, being more or less postmodernists, really liked Nietzsche rather than Marx or even Derrida or Foucault.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

That's an interesting view that I'm not sure of; some of this will depend upon which Postmodernist is being relied upon for one's praxis. I've known some fellow students of philosophy who, being more or less postmodernists, really liked Nietzsche rather than Marx or even Derrida or Foucalt.

I take after Foucault. I think Marx is irrelevant, other than for his Dialectical approach which is better explained in Hegel anyway, and the eternal bourgeoisie (though that is becoming less and less relevant. Everyone today is a revolutionary proletarian.. :eyeroll.

In any event, the basic gist of postmodernism, and what I meant by the "inevitable stockholm syndrome" is that progress is never truly progressive. The only progress is true subversion, meaning that non-subversive progress is just submission. Traditional ideas are being destroyed and destroyed again, but inevitably it is also biting at the very fabric of society: society wants traditional and directional progress but they are also inherently aware of the distinction between the subversive (and personally untenable) progress and the harmonious progress (which is essentially regressive).

This is why society tends to a directionless ethereal libertarian spirituality, because it seems to be the only escape. People are no longer true modernist progressives (the Modernist church) and certainly not affiliated with the traditional church.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They attack marriage and other social norms.

I don't see what is wrong with that.

Should society tolerate such attacks or should it fight back?

I'd think that they should participate in a constructive political dialog, if possible.

One of the nasty things about these attacks is they use things like free speech to attack and then they take away your right to free speech. The Frankfurt school called it Critical Theory and its been very effective in free societies to tear things down and open them up to various manipulations.

Yes, Critical Theory should be fought in all of its forms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take after Foucault. I think Marx is irrelevant, other than for his Dialectical approach which is better explained in Hegel anyway, and the eternal bourgeoisie (though that is becoming less and less relevant. Everyone today is a revolutionary proletarian.. :eyeroll.

I like you're thinking, and you seem to be conversant with the Postmodern ideology, probably more so than me. I think most of Marx is irrelevant, but he had a few interesting bits about production value and its relationship to the worker that I've always thought to be interesting. Otherwise, most of what he said is even regrettable, in my estimation; and I'm also speaking as one who knows some people who have lived under regimes that were inspired by his writings. You're right, too, that Hegel is the original reference to the Dialectical, (lol) but forgive me for not wanting to continually wade through his mechanically labyrinthine writings.

In any event, the basic gist of postmodernism, and what I meant by the "inevitable stockholm syndrome" is that progress is never truly progressive.

Ok. I can see how that would seem to be the case.

The only progress is true subversion, meaning that non-subversive progress is just submission. Traditional ideas are being destroyed and destroyed again, but inevitably it is also biting at the very fabric of society: society wants traditional and directional progress but they are also inherently aware of the distinction between the subversive (and personally untenable) progress and the harmonious progress (which is essentially regressive).

In theory, I'm sure you're right. From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure anymore what the average Joe Schmoe on the corner actually thinks about the tension between one social praxis and another. The elites are another story, though...I think.

This is why society tends to a directionless ethereal libertarian spirituality, because it seems to be the only escape.

In some ways it can be; in other ways it might be their unfortunate misplacement in perhaps not knowing that there might be another.

People are no longer true modernist progressives (the Modernist church) and certainly not affiliated with the traditional church.

You're right on that! And I'm sure that some would classify me as being somewhere in this "no longer" category. But, then again, if they do so, I'd like them remember not to confuse their Wittgenstein with their Foucault. Although, I am a little fond of some aspects of Pierre Bourdieu's work.

2PhiloVoid

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

his mechanically labyrinthine writings

You mean his unparalleled genius! but I kid... (only partly)

In theory, I'm sure you're right. From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure anymore what the average Joe Schmoe on the corner actually thinks about the tension between one social praxis and another. The elites are another story, though...I think.

I think it can be demonstrated by an overarching air of cynicism against ideological thought in general versus a spirit of hope and progress. I think part of it is due to the fact that trends rise and wane so quickly that the moment someone tries to hook and follow something beyond its expiry date they are immediately ridiculed because to pursue any specific ideology immediately falls into the trappings of one or another "church".

In some ways it can be; in other ways it might be their unfortunate misplacement in perhaps not knowing that there might be another.

I've been recently following and listening to many preachers regarding Gospel vs Religion appeals to society precisely because Religion is a dirty word representing the above. Religion, in this case, is the moralistic veneer of "Christian Culture" (which is not entirely bad, of course) but has this kind of restricting influence that in addition to being relentlessly progressive (in the mainline churches) also has the knee-jerk "Don't label me" reaction as well.

Right now, people want to feel free and independent. Postmodern theory, true postmodern theory, tells them they can't be free; that their freedom is simulated because they are part of one trend or another, that simply frees itself from its predecessor.

The answer of course is God: God, the author of our self-perceived freedom is also the object of our freedom as well; that we are free in Christ.

 

[Cearbhall]

What some do is attack attack attack. They attack marriage and other social norms. They attack and ridicule things that have kept society stable and undermine it. They tear down and never build up.

Ironically, this is not a constructive argument. All biased rhetoric; no substance.