We can’t escape the reality of truth
In today’s BreakPoint commentary, Chuck Colson talks about deconstructionism, post-modernism and the impossibility of denying the reality of truth.
The Rubber Meets the Road - Stanley Fish and Universal Absolutes
For his frame of reference, he brings up the beliefs of Dr. Stanley Fish, dean emeritus at the University of Illinois and professor at Duke…
Fish, you see, is one of America’s most-outspoken postmodernists. He’s well- known for arguing against the existence of what he calls “universal standards of judgment.” He believes that there is no such thing as truth, and that it could not be knowable if there were, and that abstract concepts and principles only get in the way of clear thinking. In fact, right after September 11, as I write in my new book, THE GOOD LIFE, he warned people not to call terrorists “evil.” His argument was that nations must “fall back on . . . the record of aspiration and accomplishment that makes up their citizens’ understanding of what they live by and live for,” instead of the “illusory justification of universal absolutes to which every party subscribes . . . but all define differently.”
So my question to Dr. Fish would be this: If he really believes all of this, then how can he bring abstract concepts and principles into the classroom? If “universal absolutes” are “illusory,” how can they be the best way to teach his students to write proper English?
Isn’t it interesting how the practical, everyday situations we all face show us what is reality and what is really just illusion? When the rubber meets the road, even one of our leading postmodernists has to admit that there just might be something to those universal, absolute truths he spent his entire professional career denouncing. The problem with a false worldview, you see, is that you cannot live with it.
Speaking of where the rubber meets the road, which is more palatable?
Dealing with truth now where our decisions determine our eternal destination
-or-
putting off dealing with the reality of truth until after this life is over when our decisions cannot be changed and our eternal destination is set and unchangeable?
Regret is hard enough to deal with in this life even with the hope of change - when multiplied times the infinity of eternity without a hope of change - it is unbearable.
Related links:
Tags: Theology
August 12th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I’ve been following Stanley Fish’s career for many years. What most people don’t realize is that the shocking performance of “common sense” that Fish displayed in the New York Times back in July is completely in line with the sorts of arguments that he’s been making for the last 30 years. So it is interesting to hear the sort of “shock” in Colson’s tone as if Fish had gone astray from his “postmodern” rhetoric. Obviously Colson hasn’t read Stanley Fish very carefully. And this should be enough to raise questions about Colson’s interpretation of “what Stanley Fish believes”. If Colson would actualy read Fish’s work carefully, he might again find it equally shocking that his arguments are amazing performances of “common sense.”
August 12th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Vaughn,
Help me out here. What does Stanley Fish believe? Please clarify where Chuck is wrong by detailing where Stanley’s views are in alignment with truth.
August 13th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Roger, I’ve posted a response here. Kind regards.
August 13th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Stanley Fish is a smart person. He probably has more degrees than just about anybody. However, knowledge and education doesn’t save us. Chuck Colson knows this. I hope Stanley Fish doesn’t believe otherwise. Salvation comes only through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus said that He was truth, and that His Father’s word was true as well. I believe we can know truth. For more info, go here…
Can We Know Truth?
You said:
>when we are talking about “truth”, we are making assumptions about what we “know” (epistemology).
Again, knowledge doesn’t save us.
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
>But we should not expect people not trained to see God in all things to be able to see the truth (who is Jesus) as we do.
That statement is contradicted by the story I posted yesterday.
Hungry for the Truth
Why did those folks react the way they did? What training did they have? What education did they have?
August 14th, 2005 at 7:15 am
I went back and re-read Colson’s piece to make sure I understood what his point was. While I won’t argue your point about salvation & Jesus, I think that its fair to suggest that your point above is ancillary to Colson’s point and takes our discussion in a direction that Colson hasn’t addressed in his argument about Fish. Colson was specifically addressing cultural hermeneutics - not eternal salvation. But if you want to have a discussion about Salvation/Jesus, I’m happy to do so. Should we start a new thread?
August 14th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
You said…
>Colson was specifically addressing cultural hermeneutics - not eternal salvation.
Colson was addressing postmodern thinking which relates to what we believe Truth is, and what is right and what is wrong. That has eternal ramifications. Our decisions in this life will lead to an eternal destination. I admit, I don’t know much about Stanley Fish. I have a hard time understanding him - even those that try to explain what he is saying.
>But if you want to have a discussion about Salvation/Jesus, I’m happy to do so. Should we start a new thread?
If you have any knowledge of what Stanley believes in regards to Truth - feel free to post it here. That would be helpful to better understand where he is coming from.