It must be emphasized the post-modernism and deconstructionism are hardly held in esteem by even a majority of philosophers or historians. An example of a common reaction to these theories is seen here:
http://radicalacademy.com/adiphipostmodernism.htm
Positive contributions of Cultural Theory, Structuralism, Postmodernism, and Deconstructionism to the Perennial Philosophy.
Absolutely none. Strictly speaking, it could be argued that Cultural Theory and Structuralism are not really philosophies at all in the sense in which Classical Realists use the term. At the root, Deconstructionism and Postmodernism are really philosophies of Nonsense. As pointed out above, deconstructionism has been regularly attacked as childish philosophical skepticism and linguistic nihilism.
The well-known archaeologist, William Dever, is especially harsh in his assessment of these movements, and the harm they have done his own field. He summarizes deconstructionsim with these descriptions (page 14 from his book What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It)
1. A text is an “interpretable entity independent of its author”.
2. The “author’s intention” is an “illusion created by readers”. What matters is only the author’s “semantic universe.”
3. Language is “infinitely unstable and meaning is always deferrable.”
4. All texts are to be “resisted”.
5. An author’s “convictions” are not to be confused with “theological, ethical, or narrative expressions”.
6. Others’ “legitimate readings” are as good as ours.
His response to these items is found on the next page of his text:
1. Its determined “anti-historical” stance, for which I find no justification.
2. Its promise of superior results: but does this approach truly edify us, or merely entertain us?
3. Its lack of sophistication, despite its claims, particularly in its inchoate theories of “literary production.” These are usually borrowed from other disciplines long after they have become obsolete.
4. Its largely reactionary character, self-consciously situated on the “margins” of society and preoccupied with questions of ideology and power and political discourses that may be totally foreign to the text.
5. Its stress on the “social context” of all knowledge, but its ignoring the original context of the text itself.
6. Its minimalization of the importance of philological, historical, and comparative-analytical competence; its “know-nothing” attitude toward, or denial of, any original context.
7. Its contradiction in insisting upon the “isolation” of an individual text, but at the same time arguing that “intertextuality” is essential in reading texts.
8. Its positing that a text must be “tested”, but producing no criteria by which that may be accomplished.
9. Its denial of “authorial intent”, which defies common sense.
10. Its ultimate cultural relativism, which makes the text mean anything the reader wants. This is no different than the distortion and exploitation of texts of which they accuse both Fundamentalists and the liberal religious establishment of the past.
11. Its fondness for “posing questions” of the text, but its lack of any answers.
12. Its elevation of the reader’s subjective concerns to the status of final arbiter of “meaning”, which I find arrogant and self-indulgent
13. The oppressively ideological and polemical character of the entire movement, which substitutes slogans for sustained rational argument.
14. The superiority of this approach is often asserted, usually dogmatically; but is actual reading of texts often borders on the fantastic.
15. A typical postmodern stance is assumed as essential, but it is rarely defended. Is the latest fad (for that is what it will in time be seen to have been) really the best?
In Defense of Ancient Texts
As an archaeologist, I admit to being “premodern” in outlook, an unreconstructed traditionalist by temperament and training. Consider, by contrast, traditional assumptions in approaching ancient texts, which I find infinitely preferable and more rewarding.
1. A text is a product of a particular time, place, culture, and language, and it must be placed back in that context to be understood at all.
2. A text is written by an author with a specific intent, usually for a specific audience.
3. An original “meaning” is inherent and is expressed in language that is both deliberate and potentially intelligible.
4. The reader’s first task in approaching a text is to place himself and his situation in the background, attempting to be as “objective” as possible so as to be open to the text’s original (ie, “true”) meaning in its own terms as far as possible.
5. Methodically, there is no substitute for mastery of the text’s original language, geographical and cultural setting, and the light that other contemporary texts may shed.
6. Since there are, at best, always personal, subjective factors at work in interpreting an ancient text, these must be acknowledged; but they may then be usefully exploited. These factors include intuition; an educated imagination; and, above all, sympathy, or “positioning oneself within understanding distance”.
7. Above all, the question of the modern appropriation of the perceived meaning of a text must be kept strictly separate during the initial interpretation in fulfillment of the requirement of “disinterestedness.” Even thereafter, the applied meaning is tentative, and is not possessed of the same “authority” that the text may have had in its original context. In short, theological concerns must be rigidly distinguished from historical exegesis. As Krister Stendahl, distinguished theologian, New Testament scholar, and former Dean of Harvard Divinity School, once observed, there are two separate questions to be asked in all historical inquiry, especially in biblical studies. (1) What did the text mean? And (2) What does it mean?
Dever is particularly interested in ascertaining the origins of the ancient Israelites, and criticizes a revisionist, Thomas L. Thompson, who asserts things such as:
“Archaeology “cannot distinguish” Israelite from Canaanite culture.” I add this notation because it is so commonly asserted among today’s Book of Mormon apologists that one would not be able to distinguish a Nephite from a Native Mesoameircan culture.
But my main point is that postmodernism relies, on large extent, on the “unknowability” of (fill in the blank). This is an ironic stance for people who, in the end, still insist that one knowledge is, indeed, knowable: that the LDS church is the “one true church”. Their approach seems to be to undermine every other method of obtaining knowledge in order to proclaim the LDS revelatory model superior to all other methods of obtaining knowledge. So, in the end, if historical information and scientific findings seem to present uncomfortable challenges or contradictions to this “truth”, they can be disregarded because they (the historical and scientific findings) are so fallible in their origins.
See Juliann Reynold’s essay on FAIR:
http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Critics_in_ ... Glass.html
Why is this understanding of the Latter-day Saint position in relation to the greater religious scene important? It is important because too many LDS perceive liberal scholarship to be a threat to the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Certainly, there are radical-even disrespectful and blasphemous-ideas being bandied about. But because the media highlights the sensational, such as the Jesus Seminar, and a small group of disaffected iconoclasts appropriate the title of "liberal," we have developed an unnecessarily defensive attitude towards the methodological approaches that are best suited for the academic study of our religion.
Given these claims for "truth" that any liberal would consider out of reach in the scholarly forum these iconoclasts favor, it is critical that LDS apologists understand the philosophical foundation that props up their critiques.
“Christian theology lays out how the world looks from a Christian perspective, with whatever persuasive force that account musters and whatever connections it may happen to make with other perspectives, but it does not systematically ground or defend or explicate that picture in terms of universal criteria of meaningfulness or truth.16”
It is simply not possible for anyone to prove "truth" through careful studies of historical documents no matter how appealing the prospect sounds.
Regardless of our social or political leanings, believing LDS are particularly suited to the liberal study of religion because we have a simple promise that is not dependent on extrapolating truth from disputed facts by using current standards of science and logic. " If ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4). This is where truth resides for believing LDS. It is an intensely personal journey that cannot be adequately addressed in thoughtful propositions, provocative new histories, stimulating symposiums and intellectually rich journals no matter how valuable and necessary they may be in our search for deeper understanding. As James Allen put it, "The vast majority of Church members care little for the sophisticated arguments that characterize the dialogue on either side." Instead, we value the Church because we see it "as an inspired program" which gives us "certain definite spiritual and social opportunities and values."17
So, in the end, the point of this recent trend in LDS apologia is to undermine the reliability of knowledge obtained from human reason, science, and logic. But, for some reason, it isn’t enough to just flat out state that a believing LDS can feel good about ignoring logic and science in retaining faith – it must be dressed up in, ironically, the same reasoning and logic that means nothing in the first place, so they reach for postmodernism and deconstructionism to “validate” what they are saying. They aren’t just religious rubes, for heaven’s sake. They are even more “enlightened” than those who think they are “enlightened”!! The experts (ie, postmodernists) say so!
It is, after all, “fundamentalists” who actually insist that human beings have constructed reliable methods to obtaining reliable knowledge about how the world works and its history. (Of course, even postmodernists become fundamentalists when choosing a medical doctor.)
Of course, there is still a division between true postmodernists and po-mo LDS apologists, and that is a wide divide. In the end, LDS apologists insist that, despite all the unreliability that invalidates every other method of obtaining knowledge, once GOD intervenes with REVELATION, then one can obtain very reliable knowledge indeed!!! Ironic, given the track record of revelation, which I described in an old post of mine on FAIR:
Let's say I need to take some measurements in order to plan a construction project. "Instrument X" is offered to me as a means to obtain the knowledge I want - the lengths of certain plots. However, "instrument X" has a history of producing results that are ambiguous. It is unknown exactly why this occurs, but the history of its use demonstrates quite clearly that, even when used by 'experts', the results are ambiguous. This ambiguity is not a problem with many minor projects, but it would be a problem with the more important projects. When I express concern over the reliability of instrument X due to the past reliability issue, I am told by the folks who are comfortable using instrument X that when the project is important enough, instrument X will no longer produced ambiguous results. I wonder why, when it's the same instrument, used by the same user. What reason would I have to trust that the same instrument is capable of completely clear and accurate results when it has such a long history of ambiguous results? And if it is capable of clear and accurate results for important projects, why would it not simply produce those type of results for all projects?
Now, communication between God and man is instrument X. Although it can be called by various names, for simplicity, I'll call it revelation. Here are some generic groups I've noticed within Mormonism (again, please use common sense and accept that variations exist, and that this is not unique to Mormonism). I'm going to use the terms I've seen used on this board.
Group A: fundamentalist: There is no ambiguity in the results. Any apparent ambiguity is a result of human error in record keeping or clearly understanding the words of the person reporting the results.
Group B: liberal (I'll call them cafeteria liberals) There is some ambiguity to be expected, this is normal and human. But this ambiguity is only a factor in peripheral issues, the foundational issues of the church have no ambiguity.
Group C: full blown liberal: All religion is predicated on a certain degree of ambiguity, and that includes Mormonism. Although there is no way that I can have assurance that I, personally, am not erroneous in my conclusions, and will not be judgmental towards those who have concluded differently, I believe Mormonism is just as valid as any other religious path, and it is the one that I prefer.
Group A is consistent, although they may be challenged in proving their case. Group C is consistent. Group B is inconsistent.
Group B tends to defend their inconsistency by stating, or insinuating, that there are different types of revelation and that some is so clear that there can be no doubt as to the conclusion. Leaving aside the question of why, if that degree of clarity is possible between man and God, why then doesn't God be consistent in his clarity - there remains the problem that, since revelation is inherently subjective and impossible to share, one never knows how "strong" one's own revelation actually is, comparatively speaking. Perhaps the strongest revelation one has ever received is actually quite tepid and weak in comparison to the revelation someone of a different belief system has received. I've seen this argument used to explain how people can receive spiritual assurances about faiths other than the "one true" church, Mormonism, but the knife cuts both ways.
Let's demonstrate:
Born Again EV: I have received assurance that I am saved!!! It was such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
Mormon: I have received a testimony of the truthfulness of the church!!! It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
??????: I have received a witness of the truth of (faith X). It is such a strong experience I have no doubt of its validity. I have no interest in finding a "more true" faith because of the strength of this experience. People who think they have had spiritual assurances about OTHER faiths are being misled, either by satan, or because they haven't experienced an event as strong, and clear, as my own.
Now, the entire problem is that NONE of these people can ever KNOW what the other experienced, and hence, has absolutely no rational justification for dismissing the others' as less strong or clear. And each person has no way of knowing whether or not an even MORE clear or strong experience could be had in another faith.
The result: ambiguity.
Yes, ambiguity is a part of life, a part of all communications, and, by definition of the experience, an inevitable part of revelation. Either embrace it in its entirety or stop trying to pretend that you do.