This is the last of the series of articles written about the theme, "Is God Really Dead?" Of the three articles, it is only the first which is true to its title since it really talks about Nietzsche's pronouncement, "God is Dead!" The second and third articles merely give credits to the implication of Nietzsche's claim, which is in general atheism grounded on his abject nihilism. In the second article, Heideggerian phenomenology and its atheistic overtones are specifically discussed. In this third article, I'd like to spend few spaces to discuss another type of atheism as explicitly claimed by deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism.
Deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are off-shoots of what is generally considered as post-modernism. Post-modernism is not a school of thought like deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism, but a sort of "perspective or a way of presenting the situation of people or philosophers at the contemporary times." Nietzsche is usually attributed as the "prophet of post-modernism." As commonly agreed by scholars, post-modernism is associated by its philosophical claim, "there is no such thing as reality." As systems of thought, deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are built in the edifice of the unintelligibility (un-knowability) of reality.
What is Reality?
The problem of reality started to be seriously discussed in ancient Greece when the sophists (ambulant teachers) began claiming that "might is right." The criterion of what is considered "right or true" is not reality but "might." Power makes everything right or true. Because of this, the sophists taught students the crafts of becoming powerful leaders by enhancing their skills in oratorical speeches and debate. Logic and rhetoric were taught, instead of subjects which assume the task of "seeking for truth." It was in this period of history when Plato was educated by his master Socrates (469/470-399 BCE), who was one of the sophists. Socrates was a master of dialogue who believed that knowledge is worth nothing for no one can have it or desperately seek it for nought. In consequence, he claimed that "he knows only of one thing -that is, he doesn't know." He cannot be certain of anything; he cannot arrive of what is true or real. Reality, then, is not only put to doubt but eventually buried in its graveyard of uncertainty. But he claimed of being certain of one thing -his ignorance.
Plato might have been disturbed by his master's philosophical claim. If certainty is untenable, then every truth-claim is opinion. But opinion keeps on changing, or depends on one's perception. Thus, it is unreliable and not true. Plato was very aware of the arbitrariness of opinion. So, he thought of some ideal forms, which are immutable or unchanging in various contexts and time. These ideal forms are only found in the World of ideas. The postulation of the World of Ideas ensues in the polarity of two sources of man's knowledge: that of opinion and that of true knowledge. What is received from perception is opinion, and what is received from pure reason is the true knowledge.
This is the spell of Platonism that plagued the history of philosophy, according to Richard Rorty (1931-2007). Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989) calls this spell-bound philosophy as the "myth of the given" distorting the philosophical search from Plato onwards. Aristotle, Plato's student, seeks reality (in Plato's definition: that which remains unchanged) in a concrete particular object in that it is a composite of matter and form, and it has substance in it. Medieval thinkers seek it in the "divine mind of God." Rene Descartes grounds it in the "cogito" (in man's thinking power). Following Descartes, Immanuel Kant is able to ground it in man's pure reason yet pure reason has to be impinged by experience. This spell has continued even in the works of Edmund Husserl, until finally Martin Heidegger breaks this spell when charging all philosophers in the West of being "oblivious or forgetful of Being." Rorty is claiming that he has broken free of Platonism and he is now a staunch critic of it (Platonism) but not the person of Plato.
Deconstructionism and Neo-pragmatism
It's hard to isolate neo-pragmatism from deconstructionism. Although they are entirely different schools of thought and founded by two philosophers with different philosophical backgrounds (the former by an American, Rorty and latter by a French, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), yet as implied by Rorty, neo-pragmatism continues what deconstructionism has failed to do.
Jacques Derrida is famous in his claim that "there is nothing outside the text." For example, when I say, "Simon is a male student," Derrida would tell us that "there is no reality in it." There is no such thing/person as "male student" like Simon since what seems to be a reality of "male student" is simply a matter of convention. "Male student" has no correspondence in reality. The word "male" or "student" is simply created by language, thus simply a matter of convention. To find out that there is really no reality, all you have to do is deconstruct language. In deconstructing language, you can show the disparity between word and reality, and you will eventually find out that reality is simply created by language.
What Derrida is wary about is the Western binaries: male-female, presence-absence. central-marginal. Without these binaries, everything is possible. One is free to play with language -without rules to follow, without any foundation of knowledge to engage in. If one talks about God, that's the trouble in it. At first, only few have direct experience of God. Secondly, God is a very remote idea. With deconstructionism, the idea of God is shun off as senseless and baseless conversation.
Neo-pragmatism also agrees that reality is non-existence and any knowledge of it is untenable. It, however, does not make emphasis of deconstructing language but how language works for social progress. For Rorty, it is enough to believe that language does not correspond to anything outside of it. What matters most in the use of language is how it works in certain situation without any worries of whether it's true, or it coheres or in line with that of the authority. The only criterion of Rorty's talk of what works for social progress is what he calls as "social hope." Although he doesn't assume of any reality but his talk of pragmatism is still grounded (or basically assumed) on the idea of "social hope."
In conclusion, Rorty believes that language (ex. the language of God) is baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found. Likewise, his talk of "social hope" is also baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found. If "social hope" is baseless, neo-pragmatism also becomes a "useless" enterprise like theodicy (as he claims it is).
Deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are off-shoots of what is generally considered as post-modernism. Post-modernism is not a school of thought like deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism, but a sort of "perspective or a way of presenting the situation of people or philosophers at the contemporary times." Nietzsche is usually attributed as the "prophet of post-modernism." As commonly agreed by scholars, post-modernism is associated by its philosophical claim, "there is no such thing as reality." As systems of thought, deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are built in the edifice of the unintelligibility (un-knowability) of reality.
What is Reality?
The problem of reality started to be seriously discussed in ancient Greece when the sophists (ambulant teachers) began claiming that "might is right." The criterion of what is considered "right or true" is not reality but "might." Power makes everything right or true. Because of this, the sophists taught students the crafts of becoming powerful leaders by enhancing their skills in oratorical speeches and debate. Logic and rhetoric were taught, instead of subjects which assume the task of "seeking for truth." It was in this period of history when Plato was educated by his master Socrates (469/470-399 BCE), who was one of the sophists. Socrates was a master of dialogue who believed that knowledge is worth nothing for no one can have it or desperately seek it for nought. In consequence, he claimed that "he knows only of one thing -that is, he doesn't know." He cannot be certain of anything; he cannot arrive of what is true or real. Reality, then, is not only put to doubt but eventually buried in its graveyard of uncertainty. But he claimed of being certain of one thing -his ignorance.
Plato might have been disturbed by his master's philosophical claim. If certainty is untenable, then every truth-claim is opinion. But opinion keeps on changing, or depends on one's perception. Thus, it is unreliable and not true. Plato was very aware of the arbitrariness of opinion. So, he thought of some ideal forms, which are immutable or unchanging in various contexts and time. These ideal forms are only found in the World of ideas. The postulation of the World of Ideas ensues in the polarity of two sources of man's knowledge: that of opinion and that of true knowledge. What is received from perception is opinion, and what is received from pure reason is the true knowledge.
This is the spell of Platonism that plagued the history of philosophy, according to Richard Rorty (1931-2007). Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989) calls this spell-bound philosophy as the "myth of the given" distorting the philosophical search from Plato onwards. Aristotle, Plato's student, seeks reality (in Plato's definition: that which remains unchanged) in a concrete particular object in that it is a composite of matter and form, and it has substance in it. Medieval thinkers seek it in the "divine mind of God." Rene Descartes grounds it in the "cogito" (in man's thinking power). Following Descartes, Immanuel Kant is able to ground it in man's pure reason yet pure reason has to be impinged by experience. This spell has continued even in the works of Edmund Husserl, until finally Martin Heidegger breaks this spell when charging all philosophers in the West of being "oblivious or forgetful of Being." Rorty is claiming that he has broken free of Platonism and he is now a staunch critic of it (Platonism) but not the person of Plato.
Deconstructionism and Neo-pragmatism
It's hard to isolate neo-pragmatism from deconstructionism. Although they are entirely different schools of thought and founded by two philosophers with different philosophical backgrounds (the former by an American, Rorty and latter by a French, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), yet as implied by Rorty, neo-pragmatism continues what deconstructionism has failed to do.
Jacques Derrida is famous in his claim that "there is nothing outside the text." For example, when I say, "Simon is a male student," Derrida would tell us that "there is no reality in it." There is no such thing/person as "male student" like Simon since what seems to be a reality of "male student" is simply a matter of convention. "Male student" has no correspondence in reality. The word "male" or "student" is simply created by language, thus simply a matter of convention. To find out that there is really no reality, all you have to do is deconstruct language. In deconstructing language, you can show the disparity between word and reality, and you will eventually find out that reality is simply created by language.
What Derrida is wary about is the Western binaries: male-female, presence-absence. central-marginal. Without these binaries, everything is possible. One is free to play with language -without rules to follow, without any foundation of knowledge to engage in. If one talks about God, that's the trouble in it. At first, only few have direct experience of God. Secondly, God is a very remote idea. With deconstructionism, the idea of God is shun off as senseless and baseless conversation.
Neo-pragmatism also agrees that reality is non-existence and any knowledge of it is untenable. It, however, does not make emphasis of deconstructing language but how language works for social progress. For Rorty, it is enough to believe that language does not correspond to anything outside of it. What matters most in the use of language is how it works in certain situation without any worries of whether it's true, or it coheres or in line with that of the authority. The only criterion of Rorty's talk of what works for social progress is what he calls as "social hope." Although he doesn't assume of any reality but his talk of pragmatism is still grounded (or basically assumed) on the idea of "social hope."
In conclusion, Rorty believes that language (ex. the language of God) is baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found. Likewise, his talk of "social hope" is also baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found. If "social hope" is baseless, neo-pragmatism also becomes a "useless" enterprise like theodicy (as he claims it is).
No comments:
Post a Comment