Responding to Stephen Hicks and the Criticisms of “Postmodernism”
Glazing over his two hour lecture, I’d say this guy represents a good position against Postmodernism. I like it: It is an excellent showing of how conventional philosophy is indeed following it’s inevitable course, doing what it is supposed to do.
But Of course, he is probably a PhD in philosophy so my opinion probably weight Zero against him.
Nevertheless: Postmodernism is only to be positioned against inso much as the strong motivational impetus, or perhaps, the significant force by which such a title is confined to an identity is denied. This is to say, Kant’s synthetical a priori is alive and well as the Holy Ghost of conventional thought.
It is thus this kind of institutional denial which locates the religiosity of the motion, such as Hicks represents. Hence, for example, the same kind of motion derives denominations of Christianity which only have meaning in the political-religious sphere, even while the (again) impetus which animates such differences is suspended to be denied for the sake of identity (i.e. Christianity is Christianity despite the internal theological debates).
One need only ask what truth is being presented to then be able to distinguish the complicity of modern faith with its Postmodernity: Hicks is indeed involved in an intra-religious dialogue with fellow congregants, parishioners, and most of all, fellow clerics.
It is not true that reality arises as a negotiation of subjective worlds (politics), rather it is theologically dogmatic. What is true is that human beings behave in a certain way…
It is inevitable…
…to the things in-themselves!!!
The route of the Postmodern religion is the speaking relative-critical terms which are always oriented upon the (obvious) a priori political motion, as though politics gives as not only the indicated but also the indicating element to which all philosophy points (nowhere?). It thus plays a shell game of terms so that no one ever is even tempted to look behind that curtain. It’s language is that of no in-itself thing, of the methodologcal commandment of shifting reduction to distance and impersonality.