A Parable of Human Existence

Filed under: Apologetics, Philosophy — Barry Carey at 9:28 am on Saturday, April 29, 2006

Dallas Willard, in his excellent book, The Divine Conspiracy, opens chapter one with what he calls a parable of human existence. He tells the story of a fighter jet pilot who was practicing high-speed maneuvers. She turned the controls for what she thought was a steep ascent. Instead, she flew straight into the ground. She was unaware that she had been flying upside down. Willard contends that most people, and society as a whole, live their lives at high-speed with no clue as to whether they are flying upside down or right-side up. What is worse, to many in current society, there is no difference…or at least we cannot know if there is a difference. What is true is what is true for our community, claims postmodernism.

Ideas and beliefs matter. Despite the fact that all of us are forced to live our lives everyday in accord with this assertion, many modern intellectuals deny that it is true. It mattered to this jet pilot who believed she was flying right-side up but was not. Life is full of many other examples, where if our beliefs are contrary to reality we suffer serious consequences. Those who live their lives as if there is no objective reality, will also suffer the consequences of their ill-informed impressions.

Dean Geuras, a professor of philosophy at Southwest Texas State University makes the following comments on our postmodern culture:

I answer that it (postmodernism) is not benign…Postmodernism allows us our own truth, so we Christians can acknowledge it against the atheistic and agnostic concepts of truth so prevalent among scholars today. Does not postmodernism promise to preserve our intellectual freedom that was threatened by more antagonistic movements such as logical positivism, behaviorism, Marxism, and atheistic existentialism? But the answer to the question is negative. Postmodernism, in an evident inconsistency, rejects some beliefs. It absolutely denies the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man. That is to say it denies a Christian, Judaic or Islamic God. There is also a more general reason for Christians to be wary of postmodernism. Historically, the Christian intellectual tradition has, despite some noteworthy exceptions, expressed confidence that the universe, under the guidance of a supreme being, is intelligible. However, since the Renaissance, that confidence in the world’s intelligibility has gradually eroded in Western intellectual history. Postmodernism, in its denial of an absolute truth or of any ultimate intelligible structure to reality, continues that erosion.

Unfortunately, the erosion of confidence in the world’s intelligibility leaves one open to a demise similar to that of the jet pilot.

6 Comments »

332

Comment by Kevin Winters

May 1, 2006 @ 1:51 pm

While I can understand the desire to reject nihilism of any kind, is it really true that all postmodernists reject truth? For the last 4 years I’ve been studying Martin Heidegger, who is considered by many to be a postmodernist and yet he has a very robust view of truth despite his general rejection of the correspondence view of truth. Can you give me a quote from a well-known postmodernist (Derrida, for example) that actually says, “What is true is what is true for our community.”

I’ve been interacting with this strange generalization for a few years now and can’t seem to find anyone who can actually cite where a so-called ‘postmodernist’ makes this claim. For the few that do, their presumable heroes (Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, etc.) do not support their assertions. Again, I’m all for arguing against nihilism, but I don’t think it is as prevalent as you think.

336

Comment by Jeremy

May 1, 2006 @ 4:24 pm

Kevin,
Thanks for your response. My dad (who wrote this post) may reply later, but I thought I’d offer a few comments. The first is to be careful of the distinction between nihilism and the rejection of truth. Nihilism, as far as I know, is more about a rejection of meaning and, usually, a rejection of God, than truth. Both of these are things which your typical postmodernist may hold onto (although relativistically).
Secondly, you are right that not all postmoderns will define truth as ‘what is true for our community,’ although this seems the most common explanation given from what I’ve read. But the main point is that once the correspondence theory is thrown out, there is no longer anything outside of humanity to judge truth by, and this is devastating if we want to be able to know of anything outside of us, whether it is the outside world, or God.
I must admit that most of my knowledge of Heidegger, Derrida, etc. is second-hand, so I can’t provide too many quotations. However, this article, a review of a book called ‘Heidegger and Christianity,’ quotes him as saying “Before there was human existence, there was no truth.” In ‘Limited, Inc.,’ Derrida says “Then perhaps it wil be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed…and that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential– for example, socio-political-institutional–but even beyond those determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable” (146). It seems to me, although perhaps I misunderstand, that Derrida is here reducing truth to that which is agreed upon in a society or by a political group, or by an institution. At any rate, as I said, it seems that once the correspondence theory is thrown away, truth is in trouble.

337

Comment by Kevin Winters

May 1, 2006 @ 5:02 pm

Jeremy, let me begin by saying that I think it is great that you and your dad are doing this. I haven’t seen too many father/son pairs in the bloggosphere. I think its a great idea and am glad you two get along well enough to do it (too many broken families out there). With that, some comments:

On your first point, true, a distinction can be made between nihilism and the rejection of truth. However, they can be tied together quite easily.

Second, I strongly disagree with the claim that “once the correspondence theory is thrown out, there is no longer anything outside of humanity to judge truth by.” To begin with, correspondence itself is impossible in the common way of discussing that view: how does a mental image really ‘correspond’ to a real thing? What properties are shared between the mental thing and the physical thing such that they can correspond? If I’m talking about a chair, neither the proposition itself, nor any kind of representation is three-dimensional, is made of wood, I can’t sit on the proposition/mental representation, etc. What, exactly, corresponds? It is for these reasons (among others) that I reject the idea that ‘correspondence’ is the desired relation in talking about truth, though a relation is needed.

With that, I will grant that we do need to be related to something “outside us” (in a manner of speaking). Furthermore, I don’t think that many who some like to call ‘postmodern’ thinks that we do not have access to such. I’ll be forthright: I love Heidegger; I started reading him 4 years ago and have been hooked ever since. In my work on Heidegger, including his idea of truth, and in my reading of his philosophical progeny (Gadamer, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur etc.) I’ve never seen the views that many attribute to ‘postmodernists.’ Let me illustrate with what you provided:

“However, this article, a review of a book called ‘Heidegger and Christianity,’ quotes him as saying “Before there was human existence, there was no truth.”"

I think that quote is from Being and Time, but I don’t have it on me, so I can’t check. For me this is one of Heidegger’s fascinating ideas, but let me illustrate it by utilizing the correspondence view of truth itself: truth, according to this view, is a relation between two things, namely a proposition and ‘reality.’ However, propositions only come from sentient beings; for many, animals do not make propositions and, as such, they have no truth. It is not that they have only falsehood since falsehood itself is only understandable in relation to truth, it is unintelligible without the possibility of truth. As such, to restate Heidegger’s claim in terms you are familiar with, ‘Before there were proposition-making beings, there was no truth.’ If this is not the case, then we would need to ground truth in something else since the relation that the correspondence view depends on cannot obtain without both aspects of the correspondence: proposition and reality. If it is the case, then you can understand Heidegger’s point: truth, as a relation, is sentient-dependent in some way.

I’ll get off my soapbox now. I, for one, think that the term ‘postmodern’ is no longer useful. When it was first coined by Lyotard, it had a meaning that was both useful and flexible. Now it has been made synonymous with moral relativism, atheism, irrationalism, etc., which very few so-called ‘postmodernists’ believe.

If you don’t mind my asking (sorry to make this longer than it already is), what books have you read in relation to Heidegger, Derrida, or whoever in relation to this? I’m always curious on people’s sources for information.

338

Comment by Jeremy

May 1, 2006 @ 5:30 pm

Kevin,
Thanks again for the response and kind words! I see what you are saying in your views on truth, although I disagree with you. I suppose it has a lot to do with metaphysical issues that we cannot get into much here (and which I am unfortunately at this point in my philosophical learning not yet learned enough to get into). At any rate, my own view at this point, although I couldn’t give much a defense of it, is that propositions do exist independently of humans (at the very least in the mind of God, a necessary being). And, it isn’t too hard for me to think that a proposition corresponds to reality if it represents the world as being a certain way, and the world really is that way.

At any rate, I agree with you somewhat on the fading usefulness of the term ‘postmodern,’ and often find myself thinking ‘do postmodernists exist.’ I think a lot of the confusion is that you are trying to associate it (probably rightfully) with the intellectual tradition bearing the name, whereas it is commonly used these days, especially in Christian circles, to refer to the current generation of largely non-intellectual people who accept any form of relativism.

339

Comment by Kevin Winters

May 1, 2006 @ 5:49 pm

Fair enough; then we agree to disagree. My main point, which you seem to agree with, is the bankrupt nature of the term ‘postmodernism.’ I wish thinkers would be more specific–Heideggerian phenomenology, Kierkegaardian existentialism, Badiouian aesthetics, etc. On ‘our’ side of things, it is very hard to respond to a generalization, especially one that simply is faulty.

Either way, keep up the good work. I wish you and your father the best in relation to your studies.

351

Pingback by withallyourmind.net » What is Postmodernism?

May 2, 2006 @ 11:03 am

[…] A few days ago I posted A Parable of Human Existence which referenced postmodernism and its denial of the existence of absolute truth. Kevin, a studier and advocate of the philosophy of Heidegger, and Jeremy, my son and the other contributor to this site, had an interesting conversation in the comments on the blog. I appreciate the insightful responses of both. Given the nature of the comments, I thought I might post a few thoughts on postmodernism in general. What is it? Can we use the term meaningfully? This blog has a varied readership, from those who have considerable training in philosophy to those who have little. It can be sometimes difficult to know at what level we may most effectively communicate. As stated on our main page, we want to help people think critically and consistently about the things that really do make a difference. It is with that goal in mind that I discuss postmodernism. […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>