Mendoza, Kim Final Paper

POSMODE

August 22, 2011 Dr. Maxwell Felicilda

A. Considering the fact that all of human history is a story on how knowledge defines and constitutes all of human interaction and valuation in the light of established narrators of truths, what do you think would be the impact of post-modern ideas on the proposition of truths? Postmodern ideas place a context to all truths. It is not a truth in itself but a truth for something because of the meta-narrative of the X. Postmodernism teaches that for every position in society corresponds a certain degree of power or influence. Influence, therefore, has an effect in the acceptance of truths in a society. To add to that, something is true not because it is a reflection of an objective reality which is true in itself, but rather, postmodernism uses negotiation from society to dictate and construct this truth. Truth, in the context of postmodernism, therefore lies outside of human collective decisions. In this sense, human beings become the ultimate arbiters of what is true. To have consensus is truth. The subjective and the objective are therefore inseparable. Certainly, physical scientists would disagree and disregard this notion of truth as a mere construction. For them, an atom is what it is because of the many particles it is really composed of (a reflection of objective reality) and not because of some social agreement and/or repute from fellow physical scientists that determines this truth; as opposed to social scientists who can still accept the said postmodern notion and say that the concept of consciousness may be a product of the constructs in the language of other social scientists. What is apparent here is the clashing distinction between the foundations of science and matters of society. B. What do you think would be the discernable consequences of postmodernism to the ff. aspects of human existence? 1.) traditional values, 2.) morality, 3.) epistemology, 4.) law, 5.) belief in God Postmodernism highlights the fact that all systems of meaning are in constant negotiation and flux. It veers away from the fixated notion of truth, hence the reiteration of human subjectivity side by side with objective reality. What is being done by postmodernism is that it decenters the system of meaning from the traditional source of meaning such as a Supreme being or idea (for this case, God). It examines the traditonal dichotomies of modern philosophy and say that there is and will always be a certain bias on either side (e.g. on good and evil, male and female, God and no-God). This meaning is a product of the consensus by people in society carrying an influential position. Due to the pervasive effects of subjectivity, postmodernists remain critical of claims concerning morality, truth, justice, ethics, and laws/ social policies. Given this constant flux and societal construct in meaning, it can be deduced then that no meaning is innate in most apparent realities; even with what we consider as foundations of society, they are really nothing or empty at its core. We dictate their value and have the final verdict of even eradicating their system in society depending on our subjective positions in society. All these--traditional values, morality, epistemology, law, belief in Godexist in so far as we make the effort of maintaining them, so long as we negotiate its meaning as between

ourselves in society. Moreover, if ideas have no meaning in themselves, it is questionable to assert any transcendence in whatsoever aspect of life (e.g. superior religion/ morality). The recent Mideo exhibit controversy has postmodern implications in so far as the following are concerned. First and foremost, we have to qualify the following: a. Artwork The Mideo exhibit controversy is an artwork portraying Jesus Christ and Mother Mary adorned with objects not related to Christianity b. Objective of Mideo Cruz to display polytheism c. Subject of artwork Jesus Christ and Mother Mary (Who are they? What values do they embibe or seek to propagate?) d. Sector in society which identifies itself with the subject of the artwork Catholic Church (Catholic Church values in the Philippines are conservative and fundamentalistic. Hence, what has been done by Mideo is considered immoral which go against the traditional values of the Filipino Catholic culture.) With the way I judge it (I am a philosophy student and a devout yet non-fundamentalist Catholic), the reaction of the Catholic Church towards Mideo's exhibit is expected given their conservative nature and the values and morality they are trying to preserve and protect. However, everything's just out of context for Mideo was coming from the aesthetics sense, where art is mere expression of things, an image, whether a product of some realism or a figment of one's imagination. Hence, what Mideo presented in his exhibit was a mere representation of the Supreme Being we call God. At the extreme, we don't even know how Christ looks like and if there's a God to begin with. Bottom-line, to be able to deconstruct this work properly, it must be analyzed using its aesthetic/ cultural standpoint. Also, in relation to Zen, why not look at the image as it appears removing all coloring and stereotypes which comes from the mind? In that sense, the viewer could appreciate the beauty or essence of the artwork. The violent reaction of the CBCP just proved the fact that we are stuck in that fixated objective reality, how we value God and Christian morality as a truth in itself independent of external influence. Its a sad reality how reactions for the Bishops to this exhibit clearly shows that we are indeed worshipping an icon. C. Is it really possible to live a meaningful life in a world whose foundationthe source of meaningis challenged? Since time immemorial, life has been governed by the basic institutions of a society namely: Government, Religion, Family, Education, and Economics. These basic institutions all have a unique role to play which provide foundation or meaning in society. To name these roles: 1) the government serves to institutionalize norms, enforce laws, provide a justice system, concern itself with the welfare of the society, and to secure the country from external threat. 2)The religious institution, on the other hand, is responsible for defining social values and the morality of a community. 3)The education sector transmits culture and introduces each individual to its functions or roles in society. 4) The family however shapes the behavior of its children while 5) the economic sector is responsible for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. All these aim to address the basic needs of society and to provide social order

and control to regulate whatsoever behavior that deviates from the norm. Also, these institutions determine the extent of ones freedom depending on the field one is positioned to. When duties and functions are met and executed properly, these social institutions can achieve a balanced flux and positively contribute to the development of a society. For one, deviance is considered [as] a social threat to the foundations of life. It challenges the ideal and posits a new approach that modifies the aforementioned foundations. These threats take into the form of crimes and the expectations per institution and by the people being delivered the service to fulfill their roles accordingly. I also believe that the constant negotiations and assertion of subjectivity on the principles carried by society challenge its foundations, for then it only proves that there is no real foundation (just like the pronouncement of Gods death by Nietzsche). However, it doesnt end there for as participants or end receivers of the meaning provided by these foundations (social institutions) which is actually negotiated by us, human beings themselves contribute in supplying or interpreting this meaning. In fact, I would carry here Nietzsches philosophy on perspectivism that everything is just a matter of interpretation. Since the interpretation of reality is relative and varies according to ones own perspective, I say then that a meaningful life is still possible despite the challenges. Being existentialists, the source of the meaning in everything is us. We now become in control of our life; hence, the blame. That is why in this existential context, it is very important that we know the will or motivation of each of our actions. Once determined, we can then evaluate if the motivations are reasonable or very fundamentalistic (i.e doing good because one wants to be save and not out of duty). Otherwise, we can opt to choose another motivation which is more effective for our organism. In near-to-be relationships, ideally, partners would want to do certain actuations for the right reasons (e.g. engaging in sexual intercourse). In this sense, for as long as you do it for loves sake and not out of pure lust, the act can be considered valid and acceptable in the context of a serious, exclusive and committed couple. Being arbiters of truth or meaning in a world devoid of meaning, I still believe that a meaningful life is not yet futile to achieve. From the Zen perspective, nothings actually wrong with having a world with no established meaning, for it only makes life more meaningful and overwhelming as we gradually fill in those emptiness with authentic meaning. For something to be full, it must start to be empty. D. Further, do you consider post-modern ideas to be logically acceptable? Why? Explain. For me, postmodern ideas are not logically acceptable in so far as everything is a matter of interpretation. There is no clearly established one-to-one correspondence of truth or objective reality for which we could base our assessments. The provision of justification will be constantly changing and never-ending. For one, you are supply meaning to an empty X which will be interpreted by another interpretation for as long as there is an achieved consensus. Everything is just a play of language. Even our definition or grounds for logical acceptability may vary depending on ones field, capital and habitus. Certainty is the very thing that keeps order in the world. This is exemplified by our social policies and norms because there is a clear and distinct idea as to how the world is to be governed and regulated. Otherwise, all behaviors that would oppose it would be considered as deviant behavior. As simple as that! On the one hand, it may also seem discriminatory since only those who embody prestige and influence in society or

those who participated in achieving a consensus will have the last say. It also brings out the problem of the possibility of two or more equally influential groups protecting a different set of interests but negotiating for the same issue. What then will be the grounds for this? However, with all this said, on the basis of deconstruction and being able to provide a proper context for everything for the sake of proper argumentation and comprehension, postmodernism in here holds its purpose. By properly deconstructing reality, we could have a better understanding of the world before us and could effectively achieve communicative action complete with all three elements: 1) propositional truth, 2) truthfulness, and 3) rightness.