An Argument for the Incoherency of Postmodernism

Postmodernism has been a prevalent contemporary idea permeating Western thought. Especially thinkers in my theological circles!¹ Postmodernists view that propositions are collectively subjective. Such a worldview is detrimental not only for certain positions that are philosophical and theological, but even scientific as well. What led me to this issue was the underlying presupposition in a 2015 Pew Research statistical report that is called scientific objectivity.² Regardless of one’s philosophical stance on reality, God, or the State, this worldview causes serious detriment to our ‘Stories of Reality.’³ This further applies to those who have the presupposition of scientific objectivity in their Story of Reality. My attempt here is to publicly dismantle the viability of Postmodernism as an epistemological methodology. In order to establish the grounds for finding Postmodernism to be incoherent, we must dissect it using syllogism.⁴

What follows is my syllogistic argument for Postmodernism, we will call this Moderate Postmodernism:⁵

Let X = most sophisticated human persons, Y = knowledge that is capable of informing reality, Z = objective truth, A = diverse interpretations, B = objective meaning, and C = correct interpretation.

1. X concede that Y is Z.
2. X differ on C of Y.
3. A exists.
4. Y is interconnected to A.
5. A conflict, and C is obscure in A.
6. A and C have no B.
7. B is absent in Y.
8. Z and B are interconnected.
9. Z does not exist. (7–8)

The argument here is valid because none of the variables contradict each other in logical form. (1) through (5) are premises that are justified within the world of X, but there are premises that make this argument unsound. I suggest we overview the justification and coherency of premises (6) and (7). Postmodern thought, in the way I have presented it, is mainly dependent on the continuity of hermeneutics. While I appreciate and cherish such a device in which we may apply such propositions in the real world, this doesn’t imply that the truthfulness of something is negated. For instance, the specific subject of Y may be the probability of the existence of God, and the subject of C may be theism and the subject of A is non-theism and theism. Though the disparity gives one warrant to find such a dilemma meaningless, it does not have the power to negate the objectivity of Y and C. Interconnections do not always have causal power. In this interconnection between objective meaning and objective truth, objective meaning would normally flow from objective truth. Even if objective meaning is not expressed, it does not hint that all the time there is no derivation between objective meaning from objective truth, it doesn’t imply the absence of objective truth, only that there is still yet to be objective meaning to be found in the dilemma, or that the objective truth doesn’t express itself in objective meaning.

¹ See Smith (2010) and Yong (2017).

² See the first set of data I was referring to to understand this start of my discourse in Funk and Goo (2015).

³ I implemented Koukl’s (2017) metaphysical model offered in his most recent apologetic work.

⁴ This may sound pointless since Postmodernism entails that propositions are subjective, but my intention here is to go beyond modern philosophical consensus on defeating the claim of Postmodernism via demonstration of practical incoherence; I want individuals (specifically those inclined to this thought) to know it theoretically fails as a claim.

⁵ I am dealing with a more modest argument for Postmodernism rather than a formulation that would be too feasible to dismantle or too esoteric to publicly dismantle.

Bibliography:

Smith, James K. A. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2010.

Yong, Amos. SPIRIT-WORD-COMMUNITY: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Routledge, 2017.

Funk, Cary, and Sara Kehaulani Goo. “A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, 10 Sept. 2015, www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/.

Koukl, Gregory/ Pearcey Nancy (FRW). The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between. Harpercollins Christian Pub, 2017.