In Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Karl Popper asserts rightly that “relativism is one of the numerous crimes of the intellectuals because it betrays reason and mankind.” In the same vein, Dorinda Outram asserts in The Enlightenment that there was “a great range of variation in ways of interpreting the Enlightenment.” In Dorinda’s view, it is highly possible for two or ten people in the same room to give two or ten different opinions if asked to define it. The very essence of relativism is that there is no one standard that is valid for everyone.
Relativism and skepticism or a general suspicion of reason are all characteristics of postmodernism. That is, at the heart of postmodernism is a redefining of truth. In other words, postmodernism was developed on profound skepticism toward language, knowledge, history, reason and truth. There is no definition that postmodernism can be agreed upon. In that sense, postmodernism can mean both anything and everything. A perfect case for an invitation to confusion. A dangerous path.
Postmodernism is, in that sense, focused on emptying the reality of its own identity, converting it into fiction. In so doing, postmodernism undermines the traditional notions of truth and the nature of knowledge itself, dismissing the fact that it is based on knowledge that we give people the right to act in public. A physician is given the right to do certain things with your body because he knows certain things. In what follows, I aim to identify two to three main issues of which I believe the postmodernist individual is wrong. I will show that the postmodern views of truth and knowledge need clarification by highlighting the correspondence theory of truth and the postmodern rejection of it. Consequently, the two following paragraphs are twofold: We want to know what truth is, and we also want to find out the nature of knowledge.
In its strict definition, to repeat Dr. Moreland, truth is essentially when things are the way one takes them to be when reality matches the way one thinks or believes, or asserts reality to be. Truth is, in that sense, the matching correspondence between an assumption and reality itself. That is, it is safe to assume that it is never when thinking something to be a certain way that makes it true; it is the reality itself that makes this thing true. That is, truth has to match between a belief or a thought and reality. Which leads us to our second point, “What is the nature of knowledge?”
Taking Christianity as an example, we get knowledge from it. Moreover, Christianity supports different kinds of knowledge. Among them, first, we find knowledge by acquaintance, which is knowledge by direct awareness, knowledge, or simple seeing. For example, one can be aware of God when He shows up in worship, and one can also be aware of the presence and malevolence of demons. Second, Christianity supports propositional knowledge. It is a true belief based on adequate reasons. Lastly, Christianity also supports skills and wisdom. It is the ability to do something well. Christianity provides all these three kinds of knowledge.
Nevertheless, knowledge does not require total certainty. Furthermore, this is where the postmodernist gets things wrong. Something can be true but not necessarily true. That is, one must distinguish between necessary and contingent truth. An example of a necessary truth is 2+2 = 4. There is no possibility that 2+2 equals five or equals anything else but 4. However, a contingent truth is true but is also possibly false. Put simply, it is a truth that could have been false on the other side.
Returning to our present purposes, the correspondence theory of truth says that something is true just in case it corresponds to reality. Consider the proposition that the 1argument.com blog was launched in Summer 2022, is true. This proposition is true in case there is a specific fact, namely, the blog 1argument.com being launched not in Summer 2023 but in 2022, actually corresponds to the real world. However, the problem with the postmodernist is that not only does he seek to reinterpret what this knowledge is, but he also seeks to count this knowledge as a product of relativism of truth, reality, linguistic meaning, and so forth. In other words, the postmodernist would deny the correspondence theory and would oppose the objective reality of truth and knowledge. Put simply, the postmodernist would argue that the blog was not really launched in Summer 2022 not because he grounds his statement on historical fact, but only because he thinks he can dismiss this fact by claiming that it is naive to state a specific date on the launching of this blog. Weird, right? Indeed. Because as you know postmodernism claims that no truth should be affirmed.
That is, another issue with which the postmodernist is wrong is the rejection that rationality is objective, considering that no one approaches reality in total objectivity without bias. Postmodernists like to argue that knowledge is a construction of one’s social, and linguistic structures and not a truthful representation of reality. The problem with that view is that there is a distinction between psychological and rational objectivity. Is it true that people have psychological objectivity? Yes. But only in areas that people do not care to know about. In other terms, there is an absence of bias or commitment either way on an issue.
On the other hand, is it possible to be psychologically objective? Most people aren’t. The important thing is this lack of psychological objectivity does not really matter, nor does it imply a lack of rational objectivity. One is still able to know or see the world directly the way it is. For instance, this ability to discern the difference between a good and bad argument is part of one’s rational objectivity and is independent of psychological objectivity.
In sum, although we can know things by involving senses, that does not mean knowledge is limited to only sense perception. There are things we know that cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, or heard. Put simply, truth in that sense, although invisible, one is still aware of it. That is, the burden of proof should fall on the shoulders of the postmodernist who undermines the traditional notion of truth and knowledge by claiming that there is no empirical knowledge, the nature of knowledge and truth are social constructions, or truth is simply contingent and not necessary.
Wesley Herrera