In fairness to postmoderism

A few times I have spoken less than flattering about postmodernism. Plus, I have also written about the importance of not beating down those one disagrees with. So yes, I have some great problems with postmodernist thought, yet, I understand why it is embraced.

What is postmodernism? You know, that is one of trickiest parts of postmodernity, defining it. Deconstructionism, relativism, anti-traditionalism, such phrases are thrown around, but none of them fully, or fairly, encompass what binds all postmodern adherents. I’d say the highfalutin term I’d throw around that best encompasses the tenets of postmodernism would be existentialism. (Yes. It’s more complicated than that, I mean, I can’t even figure it all out.) 

Ok. So what is existentialism? In the history of philosophy, existentialism represents a shift from modernism. Descartes, often considered the father of modern philosophy, used the idea of radical doubt in order to find some sort of objective foundation, upon which we could build truth. Quite simply, modernism is the pursuit of an objective truth, or an objective reality, even if people don’t agree on that objective truth. Ultimately, existentialism’s underlying principle is that we create our own purpose. 


Going back as far as ancient Greece, Socrates, the father of western philosophy, taught a process we now know as the Socratic method. Where in, as my youngest son keeps doing, we simply ask why, until we get to the place where we don’t know the answer or don’t agree and then try to find an objective answer. Largely, both western philosophy and modern philosophy have centered around seeking objective principles to form standards and purposes. Historically, those objective standards have come from either revelation, reason, experience, or any combination of the three. Read my two former post for further explanation.

Existentialism, shifted focus toward the subjective. It centered on passions, the human will, desires in order to determine purpose. Back in the early 19th century, a Dane by the name Søren Kierkegaard starting doing some thinking, as philosophers do. In his thoughts, he spewed out a process… This is a term I love saying in order to sound smart (my wife jokes about me using this term) the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical. What is that? Well, Kierkegaard stated that objective standards can be bent (people used various ranges from bent to destroyed) in order to achieve higher purposes. 

Kierkegaard uses the example of Abraham in his writings. Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son, which to us would seem to be a violation of an objective moral standard. Yet, in order that a greater purpose--a purpose we may not be able to fully understand--may come to fruition, Kierkegaard says God suspended objective ethical standards. He stresses, that passionate obedience is more important than focusing on objective moral standards. 

Quick side note: I agree that passionate obedience to God is our highest purpose, but I still believe revelation is that objective standard upon which we can achieve obedience. What Kierkegaard fails to speak of, is that God’s revelation to Abraham was that through Isaac he would become a great nation. God repeated this over and over. Thus, Abraham radically followed a higher objective standard. He trusted that God would not allow a moral standard to be broken. Hebrews 11 confirms this. 

Regardless, Kierkegaard began this new wave of philosophy, which were the seeds of what became existentialism. Just as Descartes did with rationalism, Kierkegaard--like many over-thinking humans--felt this philosophy would lift Christianity. And, much of his work was devoted to opposing the rationalist and empiricists who had used modernism as a tool to attack Christianity. 

And, I get it. I understand why the faithful, would adopt his teachings. I get where he was coming from. Wrestling with faith is difficult. Trying to figure out an objective right and wrong? It is messy. And, trying to understand God’s revelation… How can our human minds do that? So, it is often easier to simply say, “Well, God must be calling me to do this or so-and-so action must be moral, even though it may not seem to be what scripture says objectively.”

But just as with modern philosophy, new fellows grabbed hold of existential thinking. And in the early 20th century, existentialism shifted our culture, erupting, birthing postmodernism, all of which I shall talk about next post.