# Postmodernism not relativistic?



## Neplusultra (Sep 18, 2009)

One of the things I see being thrown around the blogosphere is the idea that postmodernism isn't relativism at all. It seems the Emergents have caught on to this argument and are beginning to move away from that thought, combating it and claiming that postmodernism is anything but relativistic, but instead it reveals more meaning than most people would be wiling to admit.

One blog in particular puts it this way:

"Postmodernism, in spite of the contradictory cries of Modernism’s loudest preachers, neither thrives on relativism, nor does it reduce all to the relativistic. Postmodernism challenges modernity’s definition of truth by asking meaningful questions as concerns its (Modernism) celebrated Enlightenment principles and the success of these principles. ... It also challenges all to break through the thin boundaries erected by Enlightenment thinking and Modernity by subverting the boundaries themselves. It also urges understanding that is freed from meta-narrative, but that’s another post completely. For now, it should be understood that Postmodernism is a search for meaning in a world reeling from a failed Modern philosophy and its Enlightenment thinking. Is this all that postmodernism is? Of course not, there is much more to it than this (e.g., deconstruction, ethics, process, truth, etc.), and postmodernism as a whole should be openly investigated. For this post, however, it is sufficient to simply say that Postmodernism is much deeper than the Modern charge of relativism. Relativism, ironically, is a very, very Modern/Enlightenment idea."

Everything I read about postmodernism points to or shows great comparison with relativism. What can be said for this line of new thought? Thanks.


----------



## steven-nemes (Sep 18, 2009)

Whoever says that postmodernism is not relativistic will have to do more than simply say so.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2009)

It's easy: Postmodernism is not relativistic because one of the first things they did was deconstruct the meaning of words. 

Relativistic does not mean anything, so there's no way Postmodernism could be relativistic. In fact, nothing relates to anything if you push hard enough.

I know it sounds like a joke, but the hardcore PM, at his essence, believes this.


----------



## Philip (Sep 18, 2009)

Postmodernism is not necessarily relativist--it's just another form of skepticism that targets systems of thought. At its worst, it targets languages, since they are, after all, human constructs, and attempts to show how they have no meaning.

In essence, what postmodernism attempts to do is to destroy foundations for certainty of our perceptions. Truth may not be relative, but we may not be able to access truth.

It should be noted that just because one is post-modern does not entail belief in postmodern_ism_.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 18, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> At its worst, it targets languages, since they are, after all, human constructs, and attempts to show how they have no meaning.



Andrew, 

Do you believe this statement, that language is a human construct, or were you merely quoting their thought?

Cheers,


----------



## Philip (Sep 19, 2009)

Language itself is not a human construct, as it was invented by God. Particular languages, however, are indeed human constructs that shape those who speak them. German-speakers think slightly differently than Anglophones or Francophones partially due to language.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Sep 19, 2009)

I think that it is not relativism because it is worse. 

Relativism would say
"that's true for you but not me."
But Postmodernism says
"We are all on a neverending journey for truth. It is the height of arrogance to claim something is true the most we can say is we are searching for truth."


----------



## Neplusultra (Sep 19, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies and insight. I always feel silly when I start talking about postmodernism. It seems so odd to me that people actually believe this. How do postmodernists justify education, mathematics or law ... trying to think of things they rely on as absolute truths. At what point do they go against the flow? At some point they must rely on absolutes to function as a member of society. Is it culture; does the majority view dictate "the line" for them?

Or maybe they're only "postmodern" about God, but not anything else in life? Is that possible?

When I read postmodernists they destroy the Bible's ideology by nature I guess, but do they do this to Shakespeare, Homer or Dan Brown (haha)? I can't seem to get my head around this.

Is postmodernism the alternative to absolute truth, is it saying that there is no absolute truth? Please forgive my naiveté.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Sep 19, 2009)

My understanding of Postmodernism only comes from listening to emergent types. I dont know how it functions in a secular environment.

They seem to make the truth claim god exists. But then they undermine this truth claim by saying that no one can know him, or know anything about him.

They typically say that god finds certain things wrong, but then they undermine that by saying we cant know for certain what is immoral. (except that to say we can know something as truth is immoral)

They typically say that their is truth, but then they undermine that by saying we cannot know it.

It's a highly illogical system of thought, but then I guess they'd say that we cannot know what is logical or not. 

If we can know nothing of God as truth, then we cannot know anything as truth. Because universal objective truths can only exist because God exists. PM undermines all logical thought so I guess the logical mind cant understand it. These guys talk a lot but never say anything, except that there is nothing to be said.


----------



## Neplusultra (Sep 19, 2009)

Sonoftheday said:


> PM undermines all logical thought so I guess the logical mind cant understand it. These guys talk a lot but never say anything, except that there is nothing to be said.



Ha! That made me laugh out loud, literally.

Well, I have a lot of questions, but in keeping with the subject-matter of the post I have learned that postmodernism doesn't necessarily _mean_ relativism, but can sometimes _lead_ to relativism (possibly why it's seen as being so closely related). Right?

And does anyone know what the quoted meant by meta-narratives? That seems to be another focal point for Emergents.


----------



## discipulo (Sep 19, 2009)

Thank you for putting such a stimulate subject.

Post Modernists consider themselves Post Structuralists, in the sense of the Michel Foucault’s diagnose of the structures of power that condition society and human life and thought, towards an abolition or rejection of those structures by all those Post Modern Gurus like the later Foucauld himself, and Derrida, Deleuze, Barthes, etc, etc.

When we consider the Post Modern Culture Relativistic, we nailed them right on the head, 

Just taking a look at the Gene Edward Veith, Postmodern Times, leaves no room for doubt about it. 

But we can only state that something is Relative or Relativistic out of an Absolute Referential.

When 1 train starts moving away from another, one sitting in the still train may feel is moving.

It’s always Relative to something.

For the Post Modernists, that is a Positivistic Modern Concept, they are not Relativistic because that would be a standard in itself, a Concept to Label, Evaluate, Classify them, on the bottom line it is, for them, an outward attempt to hold them inside a Power Structure of some sort, so they reject it.

It is the Kantian Self Autonomy of Reason spreading outwards to all other areas of existence, particularly the collective social life and thought. 

Of course this leaves them with no Authority whatsoever.

The funny thing is that doesn’t prevent them from making all kinds of claims on others, even pretty absolute claims to which they have no Authority, but themselves to make.

Nietzsche was already a post modernist avant la letter, when on the Twilight of the Gods, he makes all attempts to demonstrate that there is no significant meaning in existence.

It is just enough to proclaim:

_To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. _Isaiah 8:20


----------



## Just1covenanter (Sep 19, 2009)

Neplusultra said:


> And does anyone know what the quoted meant by meta-narratives? That seems to be another focal point for Emergents.



Metanarrative is a totalitizing narrative that offers structure for a series of truth claims. Examples of metanarrative include Marxism, feminism, Darwinism, and yes, Christianity. 

I think one thing that can be recovered from the Postmodern viewpoint is a greater awareness of perspective with regard to truth. I illustrate it this way:

"Fact": In 1492, Columbus discovered America.
Questions: Does discover mean no one was there before? As far as the Indians were concerned, it was already discovered.
Did Columbus discover it by himself? 
1492 by whose calendar? The European one? 

It's not that the claim is false. It's that from a different viewpoint, it becomes insufficient. The language does not entirely strike at the truth of the proposition. To call this simple relativism is reductive.


----------

