I have to thank blogger Counseling Kevin for his supportive and complementary response to my post on our being created lovers of God. He also, to my appreciation, gives a bit of background on my blog for his readers, and in doing so hits upon a topic on which I have for some time now been wanting to write: namely, what I mean by calling myself a postmodern papist.
First, there's the alliteration of the title, and I like alliteration.
Second, there's the connotation of the terms. Both "postmodern" and "papist" have a history of being used with a less than nice connotation. "Papist," from what I understand, is a derogatory term for Roman Catholic, alluding to the fact that the Catholics don't use that organ called the brain, but like obedient sheep unquestionably follow the dogmatic proclamations of the pope. I smell a wee bit of anti-Catholicism there. "Postmodern" is also used pejoratively, in reference to anything bad in contemporary philosophical meanderings. It's associated with an anything-goes relativism in which we don't seek the truth, but just make truth up. I deliberately chose the two terms because they are used pejoratively by different parties, in some cases in reference to each other. Why? That may become evident as my blog develops.
Third, the meaning of the terms. I'm a Catholic who's faithful to the Magisterium, hence a papist. I'm also what I'd call a postmodernist. Some postmodernists would say my being an obedient Catholic means I can't be postmodern and that I'm something closer to being a pre-modernist. Some devout Catholics would say my allegiance to church authority means I can't be postmodern. Well, I think both postmodern and papist are possible together, but that assertion takes some explaining. Or I may just need an advanced team of expert doctors of the mind.
The word "postmodern" is a rather stupid name, but I blame the enlightened modernists for that. When the postmodern era comes to an end, I hope the thinkers of that new dawn have the prudence and aesthetic affinity to conjure a more descriptive name, something precise and accurate, like Cuppism.
In one sense, "postmodern" is purely a historical category for thinking, art, music, etc., in a post-modern world. Modernity has past, God is still very much alive, the quest to contribute to knowledge continues. Of course, the modern world had some contributions, such as the concept of rights. To be post-modern is simply to be human in our present world. Any thinker today is thereby postmodern.
In a more particular sense, "postmodern" refers to peculiar philosophical (artistic, musical) projects. What separates philosophers is not what answers they give, as if all philosophers worthy of the name are merely giving their response to some elders-approved list of perennial philosophical questions. Philosophers are separated by the questions that they raise, their particular pursuits and passions. What unites them is the contributions that they give to our knowledge, to our understanding of the world. There are countless contributions in contemporary thought. There are also countless errors and bad ideas.
The postmodern project that fascinates me so is the branch of philosophy called hermeneutics, especially what John Caputo calls radical hermeneutics, which is a dialogue between hermeneutics and deconstruction. In a wholly inadequate nutshell, my being postmodern means that I think that we cannot know things as they are in themselves, and that that's okay (although some fear and trembling are in order). We know things in so far as they are contained and creatively shaped by our linguistic constructs. I am not a realist, but nor am I a relativist. I believe we can transcend ourselves and know objective things, but not in pure unmediated objective way. Neither is knowledge a purely subjective affair. Only God knows things as they truly are, unencumbered by the confines of our human, finite constructs and fragile little minds.
I have some older posts in which I relate my experience with this postmodern project, here and here, to which you may go if you are so inclined.
In short, similar to Counseling Kevin, I see postmodernism, at least in part, as a tool. A hammer would be my metaphor of choice, specifically a hammer for smashing false idols, which our constructs can become if we think they are what they express or that somehow the mystery of truth is entirely encapsulated by them. There is only one word which perfectly corresponds to the thing itself, which indeed is the thing itself, and that is the idea God has of Himself, which is the Word, Jesus, a Person, God, Truth itself. Every word besides the Word can be deconstructed; the Word of God is the undeconstructable. In a way, Derrida said as much himself.
Pages
