Truth Lesson 3, Constructing and Deconstructing Truth

Truth Lesson 3, Constructing and Deconstructing Truth 

Constructing Meaning and Deconstructing Absolutes
 
“Constructionist”
“Deconstructionist”
“Objectivist”

 First… a little review of world history or “eras”:

“Premodern” is the term used to describe that phase of Western civilization wherein people still believed in the supernatural.
The Premodern period is reckoned as the period prior to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century (The 1700’s). Both individuals and the culture as a whole believed in God (or gods) and the principles that led to the expression of orthodox (creedal) Christianity.

It was understood that life in this realm was indebted to a realm beyond the senses, a spiritual realm, which gave purpose and meaning. Even in “secular” philosophical or Platonic thought the visible world was thought to be an imperfect reflection of the unseen realities behind it.

In his book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Carl Trueman offers a perspective on the Premodern era with different terminology:

First, Second and Third World Cultures. 

He says that these terms refer to the culture that societies embody.

So, let’s take a brief look into Trueman’s definition of the Premodern World defined in various cultures, AS WELL AS A PEAK INTO THE MODERN AND POST-MODERN ERAS:

FIRST World Cultures. 

They were/are largely pagan, but not lacking in moral codes. They were rooted in something greater than themselves. Their moral codes were based in myths. For example, Sparta and the Oracle of Delphi. 

It was sacred myth, though pagan. It had the stamp of supernatural approval that gave them their real authority. The answer to “why” for laws was always, “Because the oracle at Delphi has sanctioned them.” It was an appeal to beyond social arrangements and pragmatic conveniences of society. It could be as simple as “fate” as the controlling idea.

SECOND World Cultures. 

This world is not so much characterized by fate as much as FAITH. 

The obvious example here is Christianity. The Christian Faith shaped the cultures of the West in deep ways. Law and moral codes were rooted in the will of God revealed in the Bible. 

All was built on the character of God. Justice and mercy were shaped by the Bible’s teaching. Society was accountable to the sacred, even courts with the swearing on the Bible. 

First and Second World Cultures. 

These two worlds had a stability because their foundations lie in something beyond themselves. 

In other words, they do not have to justify themselves on the basis of themselves.

THIRD World Cultures. 

This is in stark contrast to the previous worlds. They do not root their cultures, their social orders, their moral imperatives in anything sacred. They do have to justify themselves, but they cannot do so on the basis of something sacred or transcendent. Third Worlds have abandoned a sacred order, that so the interdicts of first and second worlds cease to have any plausibility because they lack any justification beyond themselves.

This is unprecedented in human history. This leaves society without any foundation. It is an impossible task to justify itself only by reference to itself. Morality will tend toward a matter of simple consequentialist pragmatism, with the notion of what are and are not desirable outcomes being shaped by the distinct cultural pathologies of the day. 

Third world culture is also known as “Immanent Frame”.

It is not a belief that this world stood under the authority of a reality that transcended its mere material existence. Rather, it is a world where this is all there is. Moral discourse cannot find its justification or toot its authority in anything that lies beyond it. 

 

Whether one sees this transition from Second to Third World culture as gradual or distinct, damaging, traceable events, it is a moral code that renders their culture profoundly volatile, subject to confusion, and liable to collapse.

 

What it boils down to is that Third World Cultures are really just therapeutic cultures. It is a culture of psychological man: the only moral criterion that can be applied to behavior is whether it conduces to the feeling of well-being in the individuals concerned. Ethics, therefore, becomes a function of feeling.

 

It is a culture that is preoccupied with self-actualization and fulfillment of the individual because there is no greater purpose that can be justified in any ultimately authoritative sense.

 

How do the First and Second World Cultures come together with the Third World Culture?

They don’t and they never will.

 

The only way to resolve any issues between the Worlds is that it must be addressed with reference to an authority grounded in the sacred. We cannot come together on a purely pragmatic or subjective criteria. Otherwise, with no common authority, there is a permanent clash and no resolution. Sacred order and immanent order do not come together. We are dominated by the immanent order and subjective preference. There is no more sacred order. We live in a world in which moral instability and volatility are the order of the day.

The Sacred Order was a time for “Soul-Making”. People were preparing for life beyond what they knew. 
Life was hard.
Heaven was Rest. 
Eternity was better.

Modernism:
 (Creeping Transitions, Not Automatic)
Next came “Modernism”. It is a term used to describe a school of thought with roots in the historical periods known as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Arts, Sciences, and Medicine began to flourish.

A main tenet of modernism is that human reason, armed with the scientific method, is the only reliable means of attaining the knowledge necessary for humans to live well and die happily. Enlightenment rationalists and empiricists claimed the possibility of having absolute epistemological (how we can know truth) certainty – Universal Absolutes.

Through the process of either deduction (rationalism) or induction (empiricism) one could attain such certitude. The net result was an arrogant belief in human ability to rebuild the world from scratch on a universal foundation of knowledge. This period contrasts with the Premodern period in its rejection of the supernatural or the transcendent. 
Rationalism - a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
Empiricism - the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science.

A modernistic world view has been the driving force behind science as we have come to know it in the 20th century. It is the age of scientific reason beginning with the 18th century Enlightenment and accelerating through the first half of the twentieth century (1900’s).

Story of the Mice

Imagine a family of mice who lived all their lives in a large piano.  

To them in the piano-world came the music of the instrument, filling all the dark spaces with sound and harmony.   

At first the mice were impressed by it.  

They drew comfort and wonder from the thought that there was Someone who made the music—though invisible to them--above, yet close to them.  

They loved to think of the Great Player whom they could not see.

Then one day a daring mouse climbed up part of the piano and returned very thoughtful.  

He had found out how the music was made.  

Wires were the secret; tightly stretched wires of graduated lengths which trembled and vibrated. 

They must revise all their old beliefs: none but the most conservative could any longer believe in the Unseen Player.

Later, another explorer carried the explanation further.

Hammers were now the secret, numbers of hammers dancing and leaping on the wires.  

This was a more complicated theory, but it all went to show that they lived in a purely mechanical and mathematical world.  

The Unseen Player came to be thought of as a myth.

But the pianist continued to play. 

Which mice understood the world better:  the modern or the medieval/pre-modern?

I think we may ask the same question as to which generation of human beings better understands the meaning of this world.  

Our century may know the mechanics better, but I think past generations better understood the meaning.

 

Postmodernism:

“Postmodernism” refers not to a focused, articulated world view, but to a cluster of anti-modernistic attitudes that permeate the elite and popular cultures of today. It is, at least conceptually, a reaction to modernism.

In its essence, it rejects reason, rationality, and confidence in epistemology (theories of knowledge – how we know what we know or how we derive truth). It says that science has cultural biases but does not deny authority in the individual.

In “Postmodernism”, a new form of epistemology (how we know stuff to be true) has emerged, in which truth cannot be totalized – summed up into a single, universal, absolute truth.

Note:
Those who argue, “there is no TRUTH” are putting forward that statement as being TRUE. They are making a “Truth” statement themselves. 
Such line of argument is intrinsically contradictory. This thought destroys its own credentials.

Back to the Topic:

Society was in a “Postmodern” era. The next label beyond “Postmodern” is yet to be fixed – or – a collage of all three eras. It is probably up for grabs.

Altermoderism?

Cosmoderism?

Digimodernism?

Metamodernism?

POST TRUTH?

 

Or maybe nobody cares!  

Yet, we dwell in its footprint!

 

Some have proposed the transition to where we derived our current worldview and way of thinking as follows (whether true, partly true, or not):

 

The Breakdown of Belief. There is no universal consensus about what is true. There is an unregulated marketplace of realities in which all manner of belief systems are offered for public consumption.

 

The birth of Global Culture. All belief systems become aware of all other belief systems. As a result it is difficult to accept any of them as absolutely true. A buffet of Ideas.

 

A new Polarization. Culture wars create conflict over the nature of social truth and rip at our society.

Defining Terms:

 

What is a “Constructionist”?

Simply, a “constructionist” or “postmodernist” is one who believes that human beings make up their own realities – their own truth.

 

There are no answers to “life” that are alike to any one people. Each people-group derives their own truth from within their own culture. Each group, though they may contradict the realities of other groups, are equal in truth. It is the Rejection of UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

This “People-Group” also includes groups that are classed as “Victims” and “Oppressors”. There is a trend that “Oppressors” are not worthy to be considered equal in truth or to have a stage on which to stand. In the Wokeness world, the oppressors corrupt truth and must be deconstructed (more on that later).

 

A constructionist would state that all truth is only a construction derived in the group and that the language of the group is unique to themselves and produces meaning generally apart from outside influence. 

 

They determine that there is not “one” answer or common story that answers the common questions that all peoples should be asking about life. There is no universal narrative… they construct their own meaning and realities.

 

They resist the worldview of a grand narrative. Postmodernism is a worldview that denies all worldviews. 

NOTE: Its hypocrisy is that it is itself a worldview.

 

This loss of foundational truth to some is found as liberating. If we construct our own reality, then there are no limits to our freedom. 

 

In the words of a writer paraphrasing the punk rock band Johnny Rotten and the Sex Pistols,     “If nothing is true, everything is possible.”

 

The huge difficulty in accepting the constructionist view is that exclusive social constructs are mutually incompatible assumptions. (Opposite views of Life)

How does one group live in any semblance of peace with any other group? 

 

And there is no tolerance for anyone who says that there is a Universal TRUTH that is true for everyone!

You have no right to claim truth is Universal!

Diversity Rules!

 

What is a “Deconstructionist”?

 

First, the ideology:

 

Deconstructionism is a powerful postmodern movement currently in vogue on major college campuses and among the intellectual elite.  Its influence permeates every area of our culture. This movement has given rise to tribalism, political correctness, re-imaging, multi-culturalism, re-writing history and culture wars.  It has become a hammer for smashing traditional values. 

 

This movement hates history and is anti-cultural, rejecting societal structure and considers any power-structure as illegitimate and oppressive.

 

A “Deconstructionist” attempts to “deconstruct” (take apart) any solid, objective universal “story” that would link all people together. They attempt to break free of the bonding structure delivered in the “metanarrative” (Big Story – a common universal absolute truth) for all societies. They try to reveal or unveil a hidden agenda expressed in a framed civilization or institution. They deconstruct absolute, universal truth.

 

In an article titled, Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction, Catherine Turner writes, 

 

“Deconstruction is concerned not with discovery of ‘truth’ or of distilling correct conclusions, but rather with the process of questioning [truth] itself. It is a process characterized by uncertainty and indeterminacy. For this reason, deconstruction is not a ‘method,’ and it cannot be transformed into one. One cannot ‘apply’ deconstruction to test a hypothesis or to support an argument. Rather it is an ongoing process of interrogation concerned with the structure of meaning itself.” (This sounds a lot like the methodology and goal of Critical Race Theory seated in Marxist methodism…to always be critical; to always tear down; to always bring up dissention; yet to never come to a solution. It only stirs to boil but never solves.)

 

Let’s use contrast for a moment to open up a Deconstructionist:

 

For instance, a Constructionist would point out that in English we use the sound “dog” to refer to the animal that sheds on our carpet (or throws-up on our rug); in Spanish the sound “perro” refers to the same animal. 

 

There is no relationship between those particular sounds and the actual animal. Therefore, there can be different languages, each of which employs arbitrary symbols in a self-contained system; thus, this is why postmodernists theorize that language cannot render truths about the world in an objective way. 

 

Language, by its very nature, shapes what we think. Since language is a cultural creation, meaning is ultimately (again) a social construction.

 

What’s a “Diddy”?

 

Can I bring my “DIDDY” with me when I come over?

 

Further…

 

In the Middle East, dogs are vicious savages that roam in packs and can attack you and will even eat you. Man is food.

 

In some Asian countries, they eat dogs. Dogs are food.

 

In Western societies Dogs are domesticated. They are man’s best friend.

 

In the minds of some, the word “dog” conjures the meaning of “wolf” that wants to eat Little Red Riding Hood. And, to some, the term “dog” could conjure the meaning of “werewolves” the source of nightmares and apprehension.

Language does not reveal meaning (which would imply that there is an objective, transcendent realm of truth); rather, language constructs meaning.

 

Meaning is a social construct apparently exclusive to itself because it is their exclusive experience.

 

Am I a dog’s dinner, is it my dinner, is it a wolf or is it a werewolf…. Maybe a Gentile...Who knows? 

 

Finally, moving toward the Deconstructionists:

 

Thus, a constructionist would insist that there is no way we can all agree on the meaning of any word, much less, any body of truth. Each person, culture and group create their own reality and unless you are in their group, you can’t possibly expect there to be any unifying, universal, absolute truth.

This is where the Deconstructionist slithers his way through these structural barriers and breaks down the meaning of words and declarations. Any coherent body of truth or national cohesion or institution must be torn apart or “deconstructed” to unveil what is really being presented.

 

The goal is the demolition of Institutional Power

 

Given that language is a prison, the deconstructionists seek to undermine the walls so that we can break out. 

 

Deconstructionists argue that language is intrinsically unstable. Meaning is slippery and changeable; the very meaning-system of our language is clumsy and full of gaps and self-contradictions.

 

Adding to the complexity of understanding how reality is constructed in a collective mindset, postmodern linguists argue that meaning in language carries with it a “trace” of its opposite meaning as well as what it excludes. 

 

We get meaning for words because of their opposites!

Hang in there!!!

 

For example, it would not be possible for someone who had never seen light to know that they are in the dark. No one who had ever been hot would know what cold means. 

 

So, those who live in the cold would not understand the reality of the other. They are excluded from the other’s constructed reality. 

 

For instance, the word “Man” is defined as the opposite of “woman”.  

If there were not “woman”, “man” would not know he was a “man”. He needs the opposite to understand his reality.

 

Side Bar:

Then, one may wonder what Adam thought he was before God created Eve?    

Just “lonely”?

 

And, today we have even a new twist…the former first lady Obama, referring to a “woman” as a “womxn”. 

 

She seems to be trying to “X” the very idea that a woman is associated with a man.

 

What’s wrong with these people?

That is the very question we have been trying to answer. They operate on the world view that there is no Universal Absolute Truth. Truth belongs to them.

 

“Freedom” excludes “slavery.” A word is defined in terms of what it excludes. Every time we use the word “man”, we are excluding women. 

“Freedom” depends for its meaning on the concept of slavery – totally free society would presumably have no word for the concept of “FREEDOM”. 

 

If “Slavery” had not been in the fabric of our highest institutions, then no one would know what FREEDOM is or even desire it. 

We are all racists who talk about freedom.

 

Freedom would be taken for granted. To say, “Americans are free,” calls to mind (to the deconstructionist) the ways that they are also enslaved. 

 

The deconstructionist promotes the idea that words and languages have hidden, or opposite meanings and the true meanings must be “unpeeled” or revealed to deconstruct what is really meant by what is said. The metanarrative (Big Story) must go. Deconstructing the metanarrative is the goal of the deconstructionist. 

 

EXAMPLE

 

Consider for example, the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

 

Possibly the root of the Tidal Wave of “Social Justice” today.

Payback to the “Oppressed”

 

It could be deconstructed along these lines: 

 

Although the text speaks of equality, its language excludes women (“all men are created equal” – not women). 

 

Although it speaks of liberty, its author, Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. 

 

The surface meaning of “equality” and “freedom” is completely contradicted by the underlying meaning, which denies equality and freedom to women and minorities. The passage enshrines the rights of the wealthy white males who signed the document, grounding their privileged status in God Himself. 

 

Independence can thus be deconstructed into just another power play, implying the opposite of its surface meaning.

 

They must demolish Institutional Power!!

 

The Declaration of Independence

is an

Illegitimate Document!!!!

John MacArthur gives us the bottom line on why mankind really rejects Universal Absolute Truth:

"Why would post modernists want to deconstruct language? Because they don’t like what the Bible says. So they deconstruct the Truth to give room for their pet sins and tolerances. The goal is always – language deconstruction has one goal: eliminate truth, overthrow dogma, and make people feel good about what they want to do."

What is an “Objectivist”?

In contrast to Constructionists and Deconstructionists, “Objectivists” are those who believe that truth is objective and can be known. 

An Objectivist may also be termed as a “Structuralist” … those who believe that there is a structure or “narrative” throughout all societies and cultures. They believe that there is a common “Metanarrative”, or “Big Story” that links all peoples together. They believe that there is a grand story which gives meaning to all of life, and which defines what is true. 

 

Metanarratives and Worldviews.

 

More specifically, one metanarrative, the biblical metanarrative, answers basic questions that all human beings may ask:

 

•       Who am I, where did I come from, where am I and where am I going? What is wrong and what is the solution? What is true and what is false? How should I conduct my life, or act? Does God exist and if so, what is my response to Him?

•       These are questions that Christians must be able to answer in brevity and later in detail.

 

We as Christians believe this grand story is derived from the Bible and is the record of the self-revelation of God to the world, we would expect there to be a plot and direction to the Grand Story. Christianity teaches that the self-revelation of God to the world reached a culmination in the Incarnation when the Word became flesh.

 

The biblical scholar F. F. Bruce argued as much:

 

“… the Christian gospel . . .  tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.”

(In Brief)

 

Be able to Explain:

 

Redemption – why did/do we need redemption (Adam and Eve: The Fall)

History – when in history did this take place?

Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Christ – know the reason for these two events and what outcome these two great historical events brought to mankind and what it means to the individual.

(In Detail)

 

On the other hand,

 

A postmodern constructionist person would view the Bible as just a collection of odd stories…the biblical text is “a multi-voiced tapestry” that can be interpreted in “myriads of ways.” They would see no central interpretive principle or narrative at all in the Bible.

 

The Bible may appear to be just a collection of random stories; but, on a higher level, though, a unity appears. There is an intrinsic consistency in the Bible. What is God trying to say through all the individual stories (accounts) and events recorded?

 

The metanarrative of the Bible is its story an account about God. The Bible contains many accounts, all woven together by the one grand theme of God's self-revelation to the world. 

 

This Story of God comes to us in the stories of a chosen people who experienced God. So, if someone were to ask you, "What is the Bible all about?" you could answer, 

 

"The Bible is the account of God's self-revelation to the world through a chosen people."

 

A constructionist denies the biblical narrative or biblical worldview. They say that we live in a symbolic world, a social reality that many people construct together and yet experience as the objective “real world”. 

 

The Name “JESUS” is just a symbol of

Whomever or whatever you want Him to be

 

They teach that a social group and its language create meaning. This is not “existentialism” which teaches that meaning is created by the “individual”. 

 

Personal identity and the very contents of one’s thoughts are all social constructions. They stress social identity, groupthink, and fashion sense. 

 

Constructionists emphasize liberation that comes from rebelling against existing power structures, including oppressive notions of “Knowledge” and “Truth”, particularly, the biblical worldview or Big Story of God’s Self Revelation.

 

Society has always had specific foundations: Rational Ideals, God, economics, empirical observation (using the senses); but constructionists are anti-foundational. They seek to destroy all such objective foundations and to replace them with nothing.

 

Deconstructionists and Constructionists are stuck in a perpetual, never ending loop of redefinitions and questions, never, never deriving a solution. 

 

This is its sole purpose…to just stay in a loop and ask questions forever.

 

The very principle of Deconstructionists and Constructionists is to tear down foundations.

This is the very reason why they can never derive a foundational solution to any of their issues. 

They thrive in a vapid, empty, illusion that nothing can be obtained since they are anti-foundational. This is logical. 

How does one live without metanarratives? At least FOUR possibilities (A Reference Point for all of life):

 

1. Accept the meaningless. Embrace the total openness of existence and live without truth. One can embrace the “unbearable lightness of being.”

 

2. Deny complexity. Take refuge in simplistic slogans and depthless images. Surrender oneself to fashions and superficiality, playing one’s roles and having a good time. (People are killing each other over a name brand of tennis shoe….)

We live in a “Sound-bite” World.

Twitter madness.

“It’s just Karma”

 

3. Settle for limited action. Since nothing is universal, concentrate on your own personal, transient world. Find your own group identity. If you cannot change the world, change your neighborhood.

            

Focus on whatever the media tells you is the hot topic, Zeitgeist of the day and “Feel” about it…  “Hash-tag” it (#) … Facebook it… “Twitterize” it… and move on to the next flare-up… or not.

 

4. Construct your own language and thus command it. 

Knowing that all metanarratives are mere constructions, play the game yourself. Employ your own “hyper-rhetoric” as a way to assert your own power. This is the most dangerous. It is the way of schizophrenia and terrorism.

 

May also be seen in the “Political Correctness” and hyper-tolerance movement – can’t say this, can’t wear that or stand for anything lest it offend someone. So, Stand for nothing.

 

A Deconstructionist sees metanarratives as “totalizing discourses” which are associated with oppression. They dismiss any foundational structure. They seek to dissolve history. 

History, to them, is not seen as a record of objective facts, but as a series of metaphors, which cannot be detached from the institutionally produced languages, which we bring to bear on it. 

 

There can be no distinction between “truth” and “fiction”. They purport that history is a network of agonistic [fighting, contending] language games where the criterion for success is performance not truth… in other words, whoever wins! And, sometimes, by whatever means!

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

 

Since there is no objective truth, no metanarrative, history may be rewritten according to the needs of a particular group. Their intent is to bring the “marginal” into the center. (Rewriting history in favor of those who have been excluded from power – women, homosexuals, blacks, Native Americans, and other victims of oppression). 

 

Speaking of “history”, we hear a lot about being on the “wrong side of history”. Even those who resist this cultural shift, use the “wrong side of history” logo. This term is from the CRT crowd. Anyone on the “wrong side of history” are those who are part of the history that brought us to this oppressive state. These oppressors are anyone in existence that are not on the victim list. They must be cancelled!

 

If you can belong to an “Oppressed” group, then you are Kings of this Universe.

 

Homosexuality must no longer be considered a psychological problem; rather, homophobia is.

 

Added to the persecuted minority are any and all groups – Hispanics, Asian-Americans, the handicapped, Vietnam Veterans, and AIDS “victims” – each claiming to be victims of discrimination and demand federal redress. Politics has become a battle of special interest groups. Everything has become political. Though, Asian-Americans (the hyphenated) are becoming amongst the oppressor group since they are becoming more successful, a.k.a, “White-Adjacent”.

 

History is nothing more than a network of anguishing language games; thus, any alternative “language game” that advances a particular agenda, that meets “success” in countering institutional power, can pass as legitimate history. Performance, not truth, is the only criterion. Truth does not have to get in the way. A synonym for “performance” is Power. The new models “empower” groups formerly excluded or marginalized.

 

No WORD or TERM means what you may think it means.

 

“Mr. Prime Example”:

Note what former President Bill Clinton said was the meaning of the word, “IS” is when answering the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

 

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

 

•       So, what is the antidote to the message of postmodernism?

•       Remember, “What does this have to do with God?”…

•       Satan’s attack on the “Metanarrative” of the Gospel Account

•       It is a reaffirmation of a biblical theology from within the worldview of the Bible. 

•       In the end, the “plot-line” of the Bible establishes an uncompromising basis for answering the Postmodernist.

•       By nature, Christianity is exclusive. Be prepared for angst.

•       Know “God’s final word.” 

•       Know the “Big Story”, both in brief and in detail.

•       Herald the historic Gospel!