Koukl on the Self-Destruction of Postmodernism
Greg Koukl, in the latest issue of Solid Ground (found here), continues a series in which he has been examining postmodern thought. In this issue, he illustrates that the postmodern view of truth contains fatal flaws which cause its own self-destruction. First of all, he briefly describes the postmodern take on truth as follows:
Remember that in postmodernism (PM), there is no truth in the ordinary, natural sense of the word. “Truth†is either a story well constructed, a cultural narrative that works for a local community, or simply a synonym for “belief.†What we think we know about the “outside†world is merely a reflection of our cultural language on the inside, the “story†we find ourselves trapped within. Therefore, all claims to know objective truth are false because each of us is imprisoned, incapable of seeing beyond the limits of his linguistic constructions.
I think this is a fair representation of the postmodern take on truth. Koukl, then points out the fatal flaws contained in this understanding of truth. The first is that the postmodern view of truth and knowledge is self-refuting. An example of a self-refuting statement is, “All English sentences are false.” This statement contains the seeds of its own destruction. If this sentence is false, it is false. If it is true, it must also be false. Hence, this statement can be dismissed. Koukl points out that postmoderns write books and give lectures employing carefully detailed arguments meant to convince others that their conclusions about truth and knowledge are sound. They are convinced that postmodernism offers an accurate description of how things really are.
The listener is left with two options. Here is how Koukl sums it up:
First, we can take the evaluation as its advocates intend (though they don’t quite put it in these words) – as an accurate, objectively true, trans-linguistic, trans-cultural explanation of how knowledge works. Simply put, we can agree with them that they got it right. But this is precisely what we are not allowed to do given PM. No one can escape the linguistic trap, not even postmodernists.
The only alternative left is to apply the deliverances of postmodernism to postmodernism itself. In that case, PM is reduced to nothing more than a linguistic construction. But this renders the postmodern view trivial, a regional, parochial perspective that has no more claim to universal legitimacy than any other view. It can simply be ignored by any of us not interested in playing that particular language game. The postmodern view is doomed in either case.
If a person claims that there is no truth, or that we cannot know the truth, one must simply ask the question, “Is that true?” If it is true, it’s false. If it’s false, it’s false. Either way, it is self-refuting and can be dismissed.