How Did We Get Here?

 

So, How Did We Get Here?

In the 1960’s a revolution seemed to explode onto the scene and became a disquieting reality. Some called it the “Hippy Generation”. Peace, love and rock & roll was the gentle outcry of this retreat from society, morality & truth. This regress was marked by a rejection of cultural norms and Judeo-Christian standards. Sex was said to be free, and whatever else that means, it was a rejection of a worldview rooted in truth and pursuing truth. Drugs were seen as a rebellious and necessary means of disconnecting, something that has been part of primitive animistic cultures in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment for centuries.

To many this generational movement seemed to be just a fad, and an expression of teens and young people’s need to push away from parents and authority. In reality this is much too simple an explanation. To some this may have appeared an innocent eruption that accidently came on the scene and would easily disappear in time. In reality it was a step in a devolving need of standards rooted in truth.

The reason this was not just a fad that faded away, was the success of this mindset to penetrate every discipline of life in a very concentrated period. Had this remained a philosophical rebellion that culminated in a “Woodstock” event marking the historical calendar, it may have well passed with little long term affect. But that is not the case. Till this decade civilizations, for the most part, were “constructionists” in nature. That is, civilizations, cultures and societies built themselves up, evolving over time. Wheels were built, laws were written, and men were put on the moon. Humanity was constructed fact upon fact, precept upon precept and truth upon truth. We learned, we grew, we evolved in both knowledge and application. This was true in religion, philosophy, language and science.

Post-modern relativism challenged all that. Relativism is simply the questioning of the fixed nature of, or knowableness, of any given truth. Can we really say: “Illegal drugs – bad”, “marriage – good”, or “laws or morals – immutable”? Do these kinds of binaries really exist, and if so are they necessary? OR ought we not liberate ourselves from these kinds of limitations as more mature and evolved beings? If these binaries do actually exist, then truth exists and must be dealt with. Both binary realities, and binary choices demand that truth exist. Something either is, or it is not. It is either 80 degrees Fahrenheit, or it is not. That is a binary reality. There was a time when every culture in every time in history agreed that whether one was male or female fell into a category of truth. Today there is a whole political, philosophical, legal and scientific worldview that has been convinced that one’s sex is a choice, and that this choice is in no way binary. In order to conflate sex with sexual orientation in this way, philosophy, psychology, religion, language and science have all gone through some measure of deconstruction, and the very meaning of binary realities are being challenged.

The Deconstructionists

Thus far relativists have attempted (rather successfully) to blur the lines between clear binary realities. In America freedom meant that one was free to live within certain legal boundaries, for the protection of all; and within certain moral constraints for the good of all. Today freedom is evolving into something else. Whatever it is and wherever it ends up boundaries and constraints have become very broad gray areas dictated more by individual feelings than a legal or moral code. This is the post-constructionist reversal of reality. There was a time when liberty and safety were found in boundaries and constraints. These foundations provided security and opportunity for most of the free world, but for some, these boundaries seemed like limitations. The deconstructionists do not just challenge the constructionist ordered world, they are dismembering those constructions at the cellular level.

Richard Rorty is a philosophical deconstructionist. Rorty taught at Stanford and according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, developed a distinctive and controversial brand of pragmatism that expressed itself along two main axes. One is negative—a critical diagnosis of what Rorty takes to be defining projects of modern philosophy. The other is positive—an attempt to show what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge in which the traditional problems of epistemology and metaphysics (and indeed, in Rorty's view, the self-conception of modern philosophy) are rooted. Note what this says: “what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge…”. Freeing one self from “mind” and “knowledge” is the “deconstruction” of accumulated societal knowledge and the individual mind. This seems little more (or less) than the Buddhist hum that tries to think of nothing while emptying the mind. Atheist Sam Harris calls this “incoherent” but acknowledges that Mr. Rorty’s students find him mesmerizing and brilliant. Understanding these things is difficult. With knowledge and mind set aside, and rational thought believed impossible (or at least non-productive), one can see where Rorty’s pragmatism is baseless…, but Rorty might say that is the point. To which another philosopher might ask: “what point”?

Jacque Dirrida challenged everything that was binary in terms of language and definitions that are essential to giving meaning to anything. Thus defining what is true and what is false becomes an illusion. Dirrida is considered the father of literary deconstructionists. He ultimately reached the logical deconstructionist conclusion.  We must question the legitimacy of language, the definition of every word… then when the second word in a sentence is examined we must return to the first in order to re-evaluate it “in light of” the second word. Apparently Derrida’s idea is that no words actually have definitive meaning, but somehow develop meaning within a sentence, based on other words chosen, which also have no real meaning till “interpreted” together. With no standards of interpretation, it is difficult to exaggerate the subjective nature of any given series of words, no matter how skillfully they are employed. The deconstruction of language is perhaps the most basic and destructive element in the post-constructionist worldview. Without language, science, poetry and love letters are left without objective or aesthetic meaning, and the beauty and wonder of living every day becomes little more than meaningless transactional activity.

With the contributions of Rorty and Derrida, is it any wonder that Michael Fuco concluded that there is no such thing as “absolute truth”? To which one should ask: “Is that an absolutely true statement, or just a relatively true statement”? If it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist, then at least one absolute truth does exist, and that is that absolute truth does not exist, which makes the statement self defeating at best. If it is only relatively true that absolute truth does not exist, then absolute truth must exist, because it is only “relatively” true that it does not. Either way Fuco’s conclusion is not concluded and must be thought through further and restated if it is to be understandable and rational. But that is really the conclusion of truth bias; nothing can be understood or made rational in a deconstructionist world.

Thomas Kuhn  is both a scientific deconstructionist and a somewhat unaware critic of scientific deconstructionism. Given the nature of deconstructionism, I suppose this makes perfect sense. Kuhn is supposed to have shown that science does not give us an account of an independently existing reality, rather he states that “scientist are an irrational bunch who run from one paradigm (accepted narrative) to another for reasons that have no real connection with finding objective truths.” Kuhn is describing scientific “well accepted Narratives” that establish the base lines of scientific inquiry, whether or not those baselines can be established as true. If what Kuhn is describing is accurate, then instead of science building a knowledge base, fact upon fact and truth upon truth, it is instead building a narrative, hypothesis upon hypothesis, with little or no basis in truth, and with no real intention of establishing a data base of objective knowledge. Given, this is not what science was, but according to Kuhn, this is what science has become in a deconstructionist world.

Oddly enough in a world of intellectual elites this kind of unthinking, unreasoned esoteric knowledge is highly admired and held up as an example of academic brilliance, worthy of grant money, publishing and promotion. The emperor’s clothes, not withstanding, questions need to be asked, but in an environment where questions are discouraged and considered a sign of intellectual inferiority, this is less and less likely to happen.

More disturbing and perhaps dangerous than the deconstructionist acceptance in academia, is how this mindless mindset has been embraced by most cultures in the areas of policy, politics and public discourse. Exactly how this infection escaped the academic laboratory is debatable, but it is no doubt connected to the perfect storm of the rebellious 1960’s, the acceptance of the Darwinian paradigm, and massive technological advancements which made living so easy as to no longer need either God or thinking skills. Google replaced the former and is quickly substituting for the latter.

 

 

 

 

"NOT So Common Sense" - An Introduction

 

NOT… Introduction

Common sense, according to Wikipedia is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people. As usual Wikipedia misses the mark. What we use to call common sense is no longer “shared by nearly all people.”

It is the premise of this book that:

1.    in a post-modern reality almost anything that, in the past, was held to be common sense has been fractured and crushed in the name of a non-fact-based intellectualism. In short, acknowledged common sense has been replaced by acceptable common thought. Rather than unity in diversity, the expectation is uniformity without question or conversation.

2.   Esoteric thought and poorly constructed philosophical musings have replaced truth as the standard by which values and morals are drawn, if they are drawn at all.

3.   With the death of truth we find no facts to stand on. All foundation for any meaningful conversation is lost. Indeed, any value system: the law, ethics, the family, business ethos, journalism, religion, and life, all become valueless.

What happens to a culture when the law is constantly devolving, when ethics become an antiquated idea, when family is defined by one’s emotions, when a business loses its “brand”, when the synonym for journalist is lobbyist, when religion is rooted and dependent upon emotion, and life only has value if it is convenient and economically viable?

If you are a historian, you may recognize Rome in the previous paragraph. If you are a 21^st century semi-sentient being over the age of 40 you will no doubt, see America lurking in the shadows of that description as well. For those brilliant readers under the age 40, who are not historians, you may have nothing else in your expectation. This intellectualized standard less wasteland is your normal and without a referent, there is very little to disturb within your core. I want to challenge you to hang in there through the reading of this book. Imagine with me that absolute truth does exist, can be known and ought to be the standard by which all of life is valued and enjoyed.

One of the purposes of this book is to explode the myth that “relative truth” is not an oxymoron. It is one thing to espouse valueless idealism, it is quite another to live in a standard-less universe. We value the idea of total individual freedom, limitless liberty, until that liberty in another infringes upon our loved one’s safety or economic wellbeing. The practical reality of total individual freedom without boundaries is nothing less than anarchy-based survival of the fittest. It is this anarchy that has produced the norms in some communities of a total disrespect of police officers. We do not want them intruding into our homes, lives and communities – until someone that threatens our lives intrudes into those same areas, then the cries change to: “call the cops”!

We will here suggest that:

1.   in the war on plutocracy, anarchy is not the answer.

2.   In fighting bad theology, killing off thoughtful men and women of any faith is not productive.

3.   Screaming a lie, loud and often, does not make it the truth, only a more commonly accepted lie.

4.   Pragmatism does not equal truth.

5.   Truth is more valuable than pragmatism in solving any problem.

6.   Band-Aids are good for cuts, not so much for cancer.

7.   Fact based debate can lead to understanding… emotional arguments rooted in one’s biases or presuppositions only leads to divisiveness.

8.   Thinking is hard work, but productive. Blowing off steam soothes the ego, but seldom finds resolution.

9.   Whispered disinformation builds consensus. Truth and consensus are not necessarily synonymous.

10.                In a world of sin and corruption truth is not convenient, comfortable, nor without cost. ie: truth is inconvenient, uncomfortable, and costly.

11.                The lie is more costly.

The title of this book came from conversations my wife and I had over the last two decades. We would be discussing any number topics when one of us would say: “…well its just common sense.” One Monday evening sitting in front of a warm hearth my wife retorted: “There is no such thing as common sense anymore.” That phrase became a theme as we discussed a host of issues which included finances, faith, family, neighbors, world events, fly fishing, knitting and politics over the next 20 years. There literally seemed to be no place the death of truth had not corrupted. The Biblical question: “what is truth” has perhaps never been as relevant as it is today. I fear, however, that we have atrophied to the point that we find no value in truth, and therefor the question is not worth asking.

Common Sense assumes that facts matter, and absolute truth exists. When relativism and situational ethics became trendy in educational circles, eventually becoming part of our curricula in the 1960’s, the fix was in. The American Heritage Dictionary states that “Situational ethics or situation ethics takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. With the intent to have a fair basis for judgments or action, one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct, such as Biblical law under divine command theory or the Kantian categorical imperative.

Notice the appeal to “fairness” and “personal ideals” in the dictionary’s explanation. Of course, the problem with this subjective analysis (situational ethics) is that each person has their own ideals and ideas of fairness. Left to situational ethics, judgement concerning any subject, at any time, within any context changes with who the judge is, as well as how the judge thinks and feels in the moment. One cannot be confident that the grounds upon which judgement comes will not change radically from day to day, person to person, or situation to situation. Indeed the entirety of situational ethics demands that the standards of judgement do change according to a designated judge’s observations and feelings of “fairness”.

Knowing the rules and establishing boundaries before starting any endeavor or engaging in any relationship is crucial to civility and order. Whether the subject is raising a child, running a business, living within a family or ordering at a restaurant, certain expectations are essential for sanity to prevail and profit to be realized. We will seek to show that any system where truth is devalued, and situational ethics are employed is inevitably headed toward anarchy, derision, and divisiveness within the ranks. Ultimately, if not corrected, morals and ethics find no foundation and the result is civil unrest, bankruptcy and/or war.  

In the “Introduction” to a book once read and treasured Thomas Paine wrote: “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

We have come a long way since the words of “Common Sense” rang true in the hearts of men. Perhaps what need happen now is determine if that way is right and true, and whether the destination has left humanity any foundation, practically, morally or ethically.