Values, Values, Values
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ------ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
I know, I know....why does everything come back to "logic?" I believe this is because of the infusion of postmodernism....I know, I know....why does everything come back to "postmodernism?" I honestly don't intend to write about postmodernism everytime I post, but somehow it often comes back to this. It is so prevalent in our society today. On another website I enjoy, we were discussing Truth. Someone asked the question, "What is Truth?" We are so steeped in postmodernism that we fail to see that this question has changed over time. The question used to be, "What is true?" and now the foundation of truth has been so eroded (at least in society's mind) that the question has become "What is Truth?" Postmodernism has so permeated us that we fail to see the shift that has taken place. Certainly, most everyone would agree that there are things that are "wrong." (murder, stealing) but the postmodern mind still wants to be able to say that there are no absolutes. In this line of thinking we fail to follow the argument out to its "logical" conclusion. Without a Right and Wrong we can never appeal to a higher authority or even a "general understanding" of justice and injustice! It simply leads, in the end to chaos and anarchy. So, let us remember, as we stand for our "values," let's, in turn stand for order and logic, because without these, our values are absolutely worthless!
posted by Mike at 3/17/2005 05:51:00 AM
7 Comments:
So what is "wrong" about letting two men, or two women commingle their estates, offer mutual emotional suport, make healthcare descisions for each other (if one becomes incapacitated), own property joinly or adopt an orphan baby from Romania? Those are just a few of the benefits of marriage that hetrosexual couples are offered. I'm just looking for a non religeous understanding of the anti-marriage position.
Yes, I'm saying that you are anti-marriage because you want to limit the ability to marry to a particular type of person. To hetrosexuals, who though they are a larger demographic, are not in herently more deserving of anything.
And I must say that it's dissapointing to see you mis-appropriate a great writer's words for your idiocy. C.S. Lewis deserves better.
I'm sorry.....did I even mention homosexuality in this post? That aside, are you stating that my treatment of the quote is in error? If so, I invite you to post your rebuttal.....
Obviously I was commenting on your posts to Dunner, but if you want to discuss "truth" you might want to clarify some of your terms.
Postmodern: (also called post-modernity or the postmodern condition) is a term used by philosophers, social scientists, art critics and social critics to refer to aspects of contemporary art, culture, economics and social conditions that are the result of the unique features of late 20th century and early 21st century life. Among these features are included globalization, consumerism, the fragmentation of authority, and the commoditization of knowledge. The role, proper usage, and meaning of postmodernism are matters of intense debate and vary widely with context.(from Wikipedia)
Most post-modern theories -- and they are not the monolithic juggernauts you imply they are -- state nothing about the existance of TRUTH, but merely point out that the things that people have called "true" in the past are "true" only in a certain context. And that statements of "truth" from any culture, be it Christian, Democratic, Tagalog or Totalitarian "truth", are a product of that culture's particluar history and the power relations that culture has with the cultures with which it interacts.
It is interesting that you describe "truth" as having been "eroded" somehow, but ultimatley TRUTH, like GOD, exists eternally regardless of your comprehension of it/him/her. (I'll leave that debate for another post.) What you're accurately describing is your own discomfort at having things you hold to be "true" challenged by those you percieve as hostile to that "truth". TRUTH cannot change, it is only man's understanding of it that has and will continue to change and remain imperfect.
This is exactly what Lewis was pointing out -- all positions are critical of something AND can (should?) be criticised.
How's that for a rebutal?
but merely point out that the things that people have called "true" in the past are "true" only in a certain context.
You prove the point nicely.....you have stated, via the statement above, what I stated in my initial post. The postmodernist changes "truth" to fit within Context, whereas the Bible (which C.S. Lewis claimed to be Truth) is THE truth....the final authority. Without such a thing, there is no basis for any discussion, debate or argument.
You, apparently, have a misunderstanding of C.S. Lewis...have you ever read "The Abolition of Man?" Are you stating that the C.S. Lewis who wrote books such as "The Abolition of Man" and "The Case for Christianity" and "Mere Christianity" didn't believe the Bible as Truth??? His own works speak against you.
I have indeed read, Mere Christianity, The Case for Christianity, and also Screwtape Letters, Surprised by Joy, and the Perlandria (sp?) Trilogy. And while we're on the subject of good books, I'll suggest anything by Luther.
Mr. Lewis was the finest Christian Appologist of the 20th Century and I will give him all the credit he deserves. It is you that needs to re-read his works. He does not shy away from many of the criticisms leveled against "Christianity" -- he was not a sectarian -- but answered each in a way that would make sense to the reader. He did not claim to have all the answers but only what he had discovered in his own rigerous pursuit of understanding (realizing that he and all people will never be able to attain that).
And I have never claimed to "have all the answers" but certainly know, as C.S. Lewis knew, that the final arbiter of truth...of right and wrong....is the Word of God. You have also stated something I alluded to in a previous post (my initial post about C.S. Lewis) namely, C.S. Lewis making philosophy and apologetics infinitely more "accessible to the every man" through his clear, concise thinking and presentation. But to suggest that C.S. Lewis didn't have a firm grasp of Right and Wrong, or to claim that he didn't hold the Word of God as the standard of such is to misrepresent him entirely....
Actually, perhaps reading an excerpt from the first chapter of Mere Christianity would be helpful....to those of you who are interested, click here for the excerpt.
Post a Comment
<< Home