- The history of philosophy today is often modeled as an
evolution in steps from the earliest primitive beliefs, through the modern
classics, finally to what is referred to as postmodern philosophy, currently
topping the model. The model is usually laid out to show how subsequent
philosophies address problems inherent to earlier ones, while inevitably
creating new more complex ones inherent to themselves, with the unenlightened
implication being that this evolution naturally leads to superior philosophies,
and possibly one day to an ultimate philosophy supreme.
We all know that philosophy gets no respect these days. But this is just
a reflection of the postmodern influence, and simply proves that 1) philosophical
movements still do shape our thinking, and 2) postmodernism has a hard
time seeing beyond itself. None of this should cause much surprise because,
after all, postmodernism is based largely upon the concept of relativism,
which of course holds that values and truths are relative and thus dependent
upon one's perspective, or one,s personal philosophy. As such things can
be very fickle, philosophy today probably deserves its reputation, particularly
in light of the considerable number of liberals who proceed, knowingly
or unknowingly, as if postmodernism is in fact the philosophy supreme.
Granted, postmodernism does have a natural ability to defeat a conservative
argument -- particularly as it was designed to do just this, but it will
not be the ultimate philosophy supreme.
A few true (as opposed to the other type) conservatives continue to counter
that postmodernism is inherently flawed because it destroys standards (e.g.,
their own standards) and is essentially, simply put, too liberal. They
obviously do not recognize or seem to care that the ideological fight for
conservative standards has basically already been fought and lost. Their
old arguments are not going to get the liberals to defer to any concepts
antagonistic to liberalism, despite whatever empirical evidence may be
available to support the conservative cause in these deteriorating postmodern
times.
But what should really be noticed is that most of those who call themselves
"conservatives have resigned themselves to the current postmodern
reality and have all but abandoned the old philosophy for a new politics
that somehow undeservedly manages to hang on to the conservative label.
They have apparently recognized the futility of using conservative arguments
in a liberal age, and rarely get seriously philosophical about anything
anymore. The fight for universal truth, morality, and the nature of God
has been largely abandoned, despite the political banter that may occasionally
and deceitfully have us believe otherwise.
Despite a last ditch thrust by the few true philosophical conservatives
that remain, the postmodern genie will never be coaxed back into its bottle
with the old arguments. We know postmodernism can address those old arguments
because it has already done so to achieve its current prominence. That
fight has already been fought and decided, and the philosophical evolution
that has led to this outcome cannot now be undone merely by greater desire.
The conservative appeal to the conservative heart is not likely to change
many liberal minds in postmodern times. But it is very amusing nevertheless.
On the other hand, we can certainly marvel, but not necessarily happily,
at the completeness of the postmodern revolution. It confronts us in a
broad range of manifestations, from the radical to the subtle, from the
bizarre to the politically expedient. Any time our instincts tell us that
any one of these manifestations is not "the right thing", we
are inevitably reminded of the futility of our judgments. In this regard
postmodernism has destroyed our ethos and given us only personal "expression"
in return which lately has morphed into something synonymous with behavior
just not quite bad enough to be outlawed. When we see what has become
of our institutions, not to mention that cultural line that used to separate
the sublime from the ridiculous, we realize that our complaints are probably
best kept private. Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore.
Thus while we cannot blame those few conservatives for gallantly charging
the postmodern lines, we are not encouraged by their old tactics, weaponry,
and angles of attack. Postmodernism already tells us that the human mind
is a fickle gray biological mass, far short of any universal measure of
value, especially since it tends toward irreconcilable disagreement. Still
the conservatives cannot seem to get away from the frontal assault on the
postmodern mind as if it is the philosophical center of gravity. They
apparently do not understand the nature of today,s philosophical battlefield,
where an attack on the nature of the mind is an attack on all minds, conservative
ones as well. We are left to wonder if the conservatives have run out
of bullets or feet in which to shoot themselves.
Some scholars have characterized the unsuccessful conservative counter
to postmodernism as "the end of philosophy. Scholars do tend to rush
in with an arrogant pleasure to be the first to write death certificates
for ideas and disciplines that have lost their edge. Of course, in response
we are not surprised to hear the "not so fast" chorus chime in
on cue, fulfilling their lucrative academic roles as ripple makers in the
otherwise stagnating academic ponds. Never mind that it is clearly whimsical,
if not illogical, for the human mind to declare itself fully understood,
which is what the "end of philosophy" really means. A declaration
like that is certainly likely to add to tomorrow's hangover.
As a testimony to the postmodern age, the bookstore shelves are awash in
proclamations not just of the end of philosophy but the end of just about
everything. Liberals generally relish in such things, often financially,
just as much as true conservatives do not, leaving the scholars to scratch
holes in what are left of their sore heads, staring blankly, mouth agape.
The college tuition costs will, however, naturally continue to rise, defying
the final logical deduction that knowledge itself has lost its ultimate
value. But we can relish in the irony that the liberals, who have always
claimed to know better than the rest of us, must now admit that it provides
them no advantage, moral or otherwise, in the end. Maybe that was why
they invented the Frisbee.
While postmodernism has already turned out to be more than just king or
queen for a day, the future is thankfully likely to outlive him or her.
Moreover the people do still get to choose their own philosophy, and the
day postmodernism is philosophically bettered, or just plain bettered,
is the day it will be replaced. This merely follows the philosophical
evolution -- the endless evolution toward a mythical philosophy supreme.
As we must acknowledge it is indeed an evolution, we must assume it does
give us the fittest ideology for the times. The previous times were no
doubt suited for postmodernism. But the times do change, and ideologies
do grow obsolete, especially as they succeed and thus destroy, at least
to some degree, the original purpose for their existence. When this happens
ideologies lose luster and people begin to look away toward that which
has more vibrancy and urgency. Eventually we find successful ideologies
in the history books, with the lessons of their
- times, and hopefully some wisdom for the ages.
We can only assume, hopefully, that the postmodern evolution is mostly
behind us now. The ideology has secured victory and matured to a point
where it no longer views modern conservatism as a threat. Its mission
has been accomplished and thus its original purpose has been destroyed.
But as the philosophical evolution cannot be halted or reversed, forward
it continues, fueled now with the lessons and issues of the postmodern
victory. Forward, too, is an unknown ideological battlefield, where unknown
lessons and issues lurk.
Postmodernism was able to destroy modern conservatism by turning it back
upon itself. Because the conservative ideology essentially forced the
justice and morality of the powerful upon the weak, postmodernism proved
it to be a contradiction in itself and actually unjust and immoral. Conservatism
could not counter this argument without destroying its own tenets, so it
collapsed upon its own foundation. The key lesson of the postmodern triumph
is this: Ideologies become vulnerable to their own inherent contradictions
when they become firmly established and inflexible; they are particularly
vulnerable when empirical evidence does not correspond to the primary tenets
of the ideology.
The passage of time will always give us a new philosophical landscape.
With this we are given cause to reevaluate postmodernism, both logically
and empirically. When we do this, we see how tenuous its position really
is. Logically, we realize that no ideology, not even postmodernism itself,
can claim philosophical superiority in light of postmodern relativism;
the reason is that our perspective changes with the changing times, and
what is true or good at one time may not be as true or good later. Additionally,
we can now also recognize empirically that postmodernism is not what we
thought it would be by merely looking at the results is has produced.
Just like modern conservatism before it, it is only when we turn postmodernism
back upon itself can we defeat it philosophically, as any postmodern counter
to this would be an attack upon its own tenets. The caveat with this approach,
however, it that if postmodernism suddenly decides it is not a philosophy
anymore, but merely a
- political expedient it now appears to be, it may get
ugly in more ways than one.
Despite the political ramifications, a new philosophy suddenly appears
for the sole purpose of acknowledging the only truth left standing in these
postmodern times: Ideologies are also subject to a Darwinist evolution,
driven by natural selection and our desire for the fittest ideology for
the times. Using the tenets of a waning postmodern philosophy, we are
able to justify any ideology we can logically or empirically prove would
better serve us. Finding a better ideology to replace one that has lost
its luster then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the final
truth of postmodernism, and what kills it.
Pete Wagner
-
- petewagner33@yahoo.com
- http://ee.1asphost.com/petewagner/philosopher.htm
-
-
|
