In fairness to postmodernism: part two

Last post I spoke on how Kierkegaard began this new wave of philosophy, which were the seeds of what became existentialism. Contemplating passions and the human will, he shifted from the objective to the subjective in order to determine human purpose. Now, he did not suggest that right and wrong were a matter of individual preference, but that purpose/morality is a matter of passionate and willful obedience to God, regardless of His commands, even if they do not fit an objective instruction found in scripture. Thus, according to Kierkegaard, passion and will are the primary identifiers of purpose, simply following God’s word is not enough.

While I agree that passion and will are crucial, in order to have healthy relationship with God, I do not agree that passion and will are the determining factors of purpose. Revelation is. Passion and will are gifts that spring from revelation. In addition, I do not believe that God will give us a command that contradicts revelation. (Although, being a bit simple minded and stubborn, I may not understand what revelation may actually say on any given topic.)

So, existentialism brewed and bubbled growing traction. People began playing with the idea of how to find purpose. By using the objective, those of faith stressed purpose came from holy writings. Rationalists declared logic will offer the answers for purpose. And the empiricists, results. Yet, often the three bickered and butted heads, leaving the rest in a confused state.

Nearly one hundred years after Kierkegaard, WWI shocked a generation. Humanity lost hope in itself. No objective principle seemed to make the world a better place. Humans, in greater number, started looking inward for answers. Thus, the Lost Generation was born. A generation of confused souls. The generations of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Stein. Disillusioned, this generation chased their passions and desires. The roaring 20’s loomed filled with partying and wealth-chasing. They were living large… Until the 30’s.

An even greater burden slammed an already searching generation (particularly in Europe). WWII. The aftermath was brutal for a spell. Many looked deeper within themselves for purpose. (And, yes many clung even tighter to revelation). And although not the dominant thought, existentialism really flourished during this point in history. Thus enter a Frenchman named Jean-Paul Sartre, the man who came up with the term existentialism. He also defined it as such ‘existence precedes essence’. In other words, humans determine purpose. Individuals determine purpose. The will and passions are the foundations of purpose. I am not going to say (as some do) existentialists are against using reason, empirical evidence, or even revelation in order to determine purpose, but I’d say they are placed secondary to passion and will.

Existentialists will be quick to point out how experiences, rationality, and revelation so often contradict each other. And, the idea that anyone can truly know anything is absurd. And, I get that. I really do. So many people are spewing out so many points of views, contradictory facts, and articulate talking points. It’s so confusing. Where do we turn?

Thus, existentialists turn inward. According to them, it is the only reality one can ever know. And, throughout the years existentialism birthed postmodernism, which for the sake of brevity I will say is simply a collection of gobs of ‘isms.’ Relativism. Absurdism. Deconstructionism. Humanism. Feminism. Etc. 

I totally get why postmodernism focuses inward. Often, I’d love nothing more than our culture to validate my each and every passion. But, I realize, at times, some of my desires come at the expense of the passions of others. Are they to suspend their dreams, their desires, their comfort, in order that I may live a ‘fulfilled life?’ 

No. That’s not fair for me to ask--unless--such requests are found in deeper truth. Truths outside each of us. Objective truths. 

And while I do understand why people embrace postmodernity, I’m afraid such philosophy (I don’t want to sound harsh) is dangerous. It leads to a culture that demands people validate a person's passion simply because one has it. Does that mean we aren’t free to live a life of passion and joy? Does that mean we can’t ever seek certain passions we are born with? No. Not at all. But, I deeply believe that such purposes must be found and verified apart from our inner nature. Somewhere. Where? Well, I’d say, objectively, revelation. Others would say reason. Others would say empirical evidence.