I want to say sorry as well. I wrote my reply very quickly, and I can see how some things I said came off as if I was writing off some of your responses. I did not intend to do this at all, and I sympathize with what you wrote. I also realize that the list I have given is not the complete view and context of what Plantinga is saying. Please do not take his evaluation of PoMo to be exhaustive and true in all cases; Plantinga himself says this as well. It is a generalization yes. Is it an over-generalization? I hope not and think not. I think we can at least agree that points (3), (5), (6), (7), and (9) are fair to PoMo. I will address some of your stuff on Derrida and Plantinga’s proper function account of warrant later.

In Him,

Travis

Suppose p is “Objective truth is a rhetorical too use to assert one’s self over another.”  First, p is a universal-affirmative statement, so is p objectively true?  If not, then p is false.  If so, then p is self-defeating since it too is a rhetorical tool that Postmoderns use to assert themselves over us poor non-Postmoderns, and thus, p is still false.)

POMO “believes” language is inherently self-defeating, so Derrida or de Man would simply congratulate you on showing the fundamental flaws in language.

Plantinga says that you are warranted in believing anything you have formed with a proper functioning faculty.

“formed with a proper functioning faculty”? Who gets to determine this? Plantiga? Who made him god? So, anyone not thinking in line with modern Western ways of doing things cannot achieve a “warranted” belief? This notion of “formed with a proper functioning faculty” comes out of centuries of Western conditioning and development that simply wouldn’t hold water in other cultures/time periods. Not everyone thinks the same way we do, and for us to claim that ours is the only right way to do so is absolutely ridiculous. You’re right, I’m screaming “no universals,” and I’m more than “warranted” in doing so. This very mentality is responsible for the raping and pillaging of countless “non-proper” people throughout the 18th-20th centuries during European colonialism. Such essentialist categories NEED to be deconstructed to show the domineering forces behind them, to show the danger of their rhetorical force.

I’d wager that if one could fashion an epistemological system not based on domination and control, POMO thought would embrace it. Until then, expect rampant “deconstruction.”

A rejection of classical foundationalism.

I think “rejection” is an inappropriate term.  POMOs recognize that anything “foundational” is most likely a constructed reality. Recognize something as constructed by no means requires its rejection…that’s rather absurd actually. POMO would challenge and “classical foundationalism” and show how things we consider “self-evident” in all likelyhood are no such thing. POMO thought would also show how appealing to “classical foundationalism” is more often than not merely a rhetorical tool to assert one’s authority over another…and thus seeking to problemetize such domoneering discourses.

The declaration that there are no foundations of any sort (classical or otherwise).

Once again, POMO thought recognizes that any “foundations” we work from are constructed. POMO would actually recognize “foundations” much more readily than many other philosophical viewpoints, and then be highly critical of such things. So, POMO recognizes that there ARE foundations (because people’s acknowledging of them makes them very real in their force), yet they are not as “foundational” as we might think. Once again, the recognition of a things constructed nature does not require it’s rejection…often it results in much more critical and humble uses of such “foundations.”

The claim that there is no such thing as objectivity (and its a good thing too).

Your parenthetical note is potentially misleading. For POMOs, the recognition that there is no such thing as objectivity is a good thing, for it leads one to a more critical and humble existence. POMOs see objectivity for what it really is, simply a rhetorical tool to assert one’s self over another..

Deconstruction.

Well, much of Poststructural thought is based in “deconstruction” (Derrida being perhaps the most notable example), this is true. But not all POMOs participate in deconstruction, and not all deconstruction is inherently POMO.

The claim tat there is no such thing as truth (or that if there is, it is something totally different from what we thought).

Once again, a POMO would be rather off saying that there is “no such thing as truth.” Truth exists, people talk about it all the freaking time. People base their entire lives on “truth.” It’s a very real thing with a real presence in the world. POMO thought recognizes how “truth” is a constructed thing, a thing arrived at in different ways by different people in different places.

The next couple sort of face the same critiques I’ve already stated above, so I’ll quite repeating myself.

The claim that all that really matters is power.

Well, power is very central to thinkers like Foucault, and his points on power-relations are pretty difficult to ignore…but this represents ONE thinker (and incredibly important one…Foucault is practically the dean of half the humanities programs in this country). Not everyone boils down their inquiries as simple “power games”/etc., so it’s not an all-encompassing point.

An opposition to metanarratives.

Like I’ve said before…POMOs recognize that metanarratives are constructed. Most POMOs I interact with (including myself) see the constructed nature of our metanarratives not as an opportunity for rejection, but for change. Since metanarratives are constructed, it is our responsibility to step up and help craft a better one…a more helpful one. POMO deconstruction no longer is an ivory tower affair, it should incite one to action as it does me and a great many of my contemporaries.

Insistence that God is dead.

This really has no part of this discussion. Jacques Derrida, one of the most important and “foundational” minds for postmodernism (if not THE most important) regularly touched on theology…and not on the assumption that God is “dead.” A proper POMO would recognize that the statement “God is dead” is rather absurd, makes ridiculous assumptions, is reflective of certain conditioning, and is likely part of a discourse of dominating an “other” of some sort.

A sort of exultation or apotheosis of autonomy, so that one feels guilty for not having created the world (cf. Heidegger).  
&
A general self-deification and the rejection of all things bourgeois.

Foucault heavily criticized the humanist notion to “self-deify.” Some early POMO thought was very indeed individual-focused, yet I wouldn’t say that is an accurate reflection of it’s existence today as such focuses have been heavily critiqued and built upon. I haven’t read Heidegger, so can’t comment on that odd statement. And as for a “rejection of all things bourgeois,” once again I think it’s a challenging of the constructs that allow for a “bourgeois.”

An idea of historcism, the idea that our historical and cultural setting determines what we think, so that we cannot but think what we do think.

We are products of our culture…which is a self-replicating system that takes place in specific contexts. POMOs do indeed place a lot of stock in context, and recognize that we regularly reflect our context in countless ways. All of us participating in this discussion have been heavily influenced by our surroundings and our heretige. We can’t escape context, for even attempts to do so are most likely culturally conditioned. We can be self-aware, and we can be self-critical. We can recognize our cultural place, and bring that to the fore in our thinking in order to avoid asserting our culturally conditioned way of doing things as the “only way” or some other such nonsense.

If you’d like further comments, just ask. Hopefully soon I’ll have time to look over the comments of other and helpf further the conversation.

Honzo,

Could you explain your statement about God being “a privileged observer” that is “from outside our perspective”? It sounds very much like deism and I’m quite sure that would not describe you.

Also, I don’t see how what your response has to do with the what the Bible claims for itself, namely to be metanarrative. Why must we make the Bible to be that which it does not claim for itself so that it fits our epistemology?