# Postmodernism and Radical Orthodoxy



## jwright82 (Nov 5, 2011)

> The Radical Orthodoxy seems to be considered by some to be a criticism of postmodernism through the usage of postmodern terms*, I've heard bad things about postmodernism, but I myself don't really understand it, can anyone say anything particular on that?



This was asked in another thread but to answer it would take the thread way off topic, so I decided to answer it in new thread.

My take on Postmodernism (after this PM) is this. The idea of Modernism was essentially an exstension of the Enlightenment ideal that reason alone could solve every human problem imaginable. All scientific, philosophical, and social problems could be solved by the "right use of reason". This idea underwent a majorly destructive crisis in WW2 with Hitler's brutal regime. You see the Nazi's project was anything but irrational. In fact the machine's of death were purely rational in that they applyed modern scientific ideas to bring about a better world, hence use "reason" to make a "better" society which was the Enlightenment dream.

After the war Contienental philosophy (basicaly European philosophy excluding Britian) having lived through the war tried to come to grips with this. So they criticized rationality itself. They blamed in a way the philosophies that came before them as being responsible for what happened. PM is far too complex to break down into a simple definition but we can sketch some general features. 

1. Critical of any claim to "get things as they are". Or as one thinker puts it metanarratives or large "stories" that supposedly explain reality as it is. 

2. Critical of differences being made between people. You're one race and I am another so your are bad and I am good. In fact a mantra taken from Levinas and Derrida could be this: difference equals violence. 

3. Critical of the idea of a pure or privledged position. This means that viewing things from a "nuetral" P.O.V. are mistaken. We are all shaped by are own subjective experiences and places in the world. Or as we hear all the time don't trust what that person says because they have an "agenda". 

4. That translating ideas from one social context to another is very problematic. This is the saying don't judge me until you walk a day in my shoes. That is that you cannot understand "my reality" until you experience it first hand. 

Well this is problematic because as anyone can notice my 4 points are all critical points or negative ideas.There was no positive philosophy, for the most part, to build anykind of way forward out of PM. This is why despite many people's claims we don't live in a PM society but some hybrid of Modernism and PM. PM collapsed under its own critical weight. 

Now Radical Orthodoxy (after this RO) is a theolgical response to PM in a way. RO agrees with Nietzche (the godfather of PM) and PM that the old philosophies have led to Nihilism (the idea that no values of anykind exist) because they could not do what they claimed to do. Pure reason could never establish the value of anything. Nietzche called these Enlightenment ideals "idols" and used a "hammer" to philosophize against them. But RO, like the Reformed faith, claims that orthodox theolgy provides the foundation that reason alone sought to establish (although they are more Catholic than anything else). 

RO claims that all positions are inherently religous, like the Reformed faith, and so it is the right thing to do to take "orthodox" theology as our starting place in doing philosophy or sociology. RO's problem is not their method but their content. That is they start with a bad theology and move from there into defeat. They have the right idea but the wrong theological starting point. Only the Reformed faith can provide the right starting point to acheive what RO, PM, or Modernism could ever hope to acheive. 

I know that this is *a lot* of information but I had no choice due to the question. If there are any points that are confusing than post questions or private message me about them. I will do my best to clear them up. This thread is for all things PM or RO, so feel free to respond.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 5, 2011)

Thanks, James. I think you did a very good job. I might not go quite as far as you in saying that theology, per se, is the starting point for other disciplines. I would make a weaker claim that RO makes, that disciplines are theologically situated. Also, I don't know that one has to have a particular brand of theology, Reformed as opposed to Lutheran or Catholic, to do philosophy.

I also would like to point out that in my opinion, John Milbank's _Theology and Social Theory_ is neither theology nor social theory. It's metaphysics. The whole thing is an argument for Platonic participation as the proper framework for theology, and thus for everything else. I think that Reformed theology has a bit more breathing room between theology and philosophy. That is, our theology isn't made or broken based on the niceties of metaphysics.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 5, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Thanks, James. I think you did a very good job. I might not go quite as far as you in saying that theology, per se, is the starting point for other disciplines. I would make a weaker claim that RO makes, that disciplines are theologically situated. Also, I don't know that one has to have a particular brand of theology, Reformed as opposed to Lutheran or Catholic, to do philosophy.
> 
> I also would like to point out that in my opinion, John Milbank's _Theology and Social Theory_ is neither theology nor social theory. It's metaphysics. The whole thing is an argument for Platonic participation as the proper framework for theology, and thus for everything else. I think that Reformed theology has a bit more breathing room between theology and philosophy. That is, our theology isn't made or broken based on the niceties of metaphysics.



All in all I agree with you. I meant that our basic presupositions, a la' Van Til, about God, reality, and ourselves come from scripture. The Refomed faith is the most biblical position out there hence we start with Reformed theology to do philosophy. But you are right that philosophy is more independent than I made out. I do think that we all start with our religous P.O.V.'s and go from there whatever acedemic discipline we are engaged in. I have never read Milbank's book so I will definantly take your word for it.

---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> I might not go quite as far as you in saying that theology, per se, is the starting point for other disciplines. I would make a weaker claim that RO makes, that disciplines are theologically situated.



I agree with you here. I would say that Van Til rather than Dooyeweerd is a better place to theologically "situate" anything. I do like Dooyeweerd just not as much as Van Til.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 5, 2011)

I confess unfamiliarity with Radical Orthodoxy, so I can't comment on that. But your presentation prompted some other thoughts.



jwright82 said:


> The idea of Modernism was essentially an exstension of the Enlightenment ideal that reason alone could solve every human problem imaginable. All scientific, philosophical, and social problems could be solved by the "right use of reason".



I do think this is the general view of Modernism, but I think Modernism can even more easily be pegged as a trust in empiricism. Reason is too big of a thing to blame. Reason is applied to facts, and the problem, I think, isn't really reason but the facts reason was applied to. I know you aren't saying this, but I think this is where criticism of Modernism goes astray.



jwright82 said:


> Well this is problematic because as anyone can notice my 4 points are all critical points or negative ideas.There was no positive philosophy, for the most part, to build anykind of way forward out of PM. This is why despite many people's claims we don't live in a PM society but some hybrid of Modernism and PM. PM collapsed under its own critical weight.



I have a sort of contrarian view of Postmodernism. I think it is a natural response to the failures of empiricism (which Hume identified long ago, but folks forgot, apparently). And I think it is a completely expected and positive response, even though it is nihilistic. This is because the sooner folks realize that finding meaning in observation alone will always lead to nihilism will prompt them to, perhaps, acknowledge the real fact of Sin.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 7, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> I do think this is the general view of Modernism, but I think Modernism can even more easily be pegged as a trust in empiricism. Reason is too big of a thing to blame. Reason is applied to facts, and the problem, I think, isn't really reason but the facts reason was applied to. I know you aren't saying this, but I think this is where criticism of Modernism goes astray.



You raise a good point. I can definantly see the connection between empricism and the modern obsession with science. 




VictorBravo said:


> I have a sort of contrarian view of Postmodernism. I think it is a natural response to the failures of empiricism (which Hume identified long ago, but folks forgot, apparently). And I think it is a completely expected and positive response, even though it is nihilistic. This is because the sooner folks realize that finding meaning in observation alone will always lead to nihilism will prompt them to, perhaps, acknowledge the real fact of Sin.



You are right. I would say that any attempt to ground all of our certainties in anything other than God will lead to nihilism.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 7, 2011)

Thank you for answering my question. I just found in my iTunes podcast that from 10/19-10/21 the Renewing your Mind broadcasts where on Postmodernism from a conference a few years ago, the first one is from Ravi Zacharias.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 8, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Thank you for answering my question. I just found in my iTunes podcast that from 10/19-10/21 the Renewing your Mind broadcasts where on Postmodernism from a conference a few years ago, the first one is from Ravi Zacharias.



Anytime, thats why we are here to edify one another. Those are excellent talks, I hope you enjoy!


----------

