Truth Decay
I am reading a book called “Truth Decay” by Douglas Groothuis for one of my classes at Liberty Seminary. It is a tough read for me because it has so many philosophical implications and I am just not wired that way. This is a great book however for, let’s say, a certain Ace Cosner or a certain Big Tom Roten. Needless to say, I have learned a lot and have also been reminded of a lot of things, especially in my dealings with the postmodern culture in which I live and serve God. The author basically finds holes within the arguments of famed “postmodern” philosophers. One of these intellelectual giants named Richard Rorty makes an assertion that I couldn’t help but comment on, again (because Groothuis does it in his book). You tell me what you think about this. Remember, Richard Rorty believes that there exists no objective truth or reality, which matches up with his postmodern philosophy of life.
In his review called “Untruth and Consequences,” He accuses a guy by the name of Paul Feyerabend (Killing Time, in the New Republic, July 31, 1995) of “giving slanted accounts of the philosophy of science and of being morally accountable for his service in the Nazi military.” Wait a second? I’m confused. Did he say that Mr. Feyerabend should be “morally accountable” or responsible for his service in the Nazi army? He did. But doesn’t that bring forth a bit of a contradiction? I think it may. But, I have to remember that this statement came from the same dude that said in the same review, when discussing “one true account of nature,” that “the idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just towards its own increased prosperity but toward Truth, ia as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass–a conscience that swings free of both social hsitory and individual luck.”
Rorty is a little confused and a bit self-contradictory. I don’t understand how he can make those assertions, all the while claiming that there is no room for truth, or absolutes, or a moral compass or conscience by which we live. Maybe what he really thinks and believes is that he makes the rules up and he can break the rules if he so chooses. This is somewhat risky to me but hey, to be true (uh oh, did I say that word?) to the postmodernist view, what’s good for him is good for him and what’s good for me is good for me, right?
May we continue to wholeheartedly seek “true truth” in order that the lost might be saved.
You’ve essentially just presented the entire dilemma of what postmodernity is after AP.
Why do men who claim that their philosophy is so aligned with logic and reason, simply miss the fact that objectivity is the most important element in any type of knowledge? I think Christians have somewhat of an advantage in this discussion (based on their eternal perspective), but even non-Christian philosophers have understood this principle.
I know many readers won’t ever have heard the names “Plato” or “Aristotle”… Their entire systems of thought BEGAN at the question of whether we are really able to say anything objectively true about our world, and that the only way this is possible is if we find some base for knowledge that does not change, and is available to all people in all places at all times.
How can anyone ever even dream of condemning the crimes of the Nazis unless there is some universal standard to which they are held accountable? Otherwise, our condemnation of their actions is only us asserting OUR preference for OUR way of life over theirs, which is hardly able to be called “justice,” and anything but logical.