I hate to address such broad, sweeping issues when the only thing more vast is my ignorance, but of course anytime anyone begins by saying they hate to do something what they actually mean is that is precisely what they intend to do. So, if I fail to do this justice in a few paragraphs, I would appreciate your criticism & insight.
At the root of the post-modern mind is a sacrosanct reverence for the “self”. That is the basis for what I like to call “everythingism”, the modern mindset we are all familiar with, the belief that all nice people go to heaven and that all roads lead to God. I’m afraid to offend you, you’re afraid to offend me, so we keep our version of truth to ourselves so as not to offend anyone. In general, modern morality is based on this respect for the rights and integrity of the individual.
However, what I would like to point out is that in reality this deference for the “self” actually degenerates into the destruction of the “self”. The problem is that all “others” are “selves”, and all “selves” are “others” depending on your perspective. So if we deny our ability to universalize our concept of truth, to say to someone, “No, this is how it is,” we likewise deny their ability to do the same. We don’t want to impose on their person, so we deny the possibility of a shared existence.
It is much like having a conversation. A conversation is a dialogue, a give and take. I can say I don’t want to talk when you’re talking so I’m not going to say anything at all, but if we both say nothing there is no conversation. It is the same thing with truth. I can say you’re never wrong, but in the end this is meaningless. One can not always be right, but on the same hand, one cannot always be uncertain either. There is a certain tension there.
This is why if we continue down that path we can ultimately deny the very existence of the other person. I can’t ultimately prove my neighbor exists anymore than I can prove lying is wrong or green isn’t red, and if I can’t tell my coworker he may be wrong I ultimately have no reason to tell him good morning.
After all, they’re my own personal beliefs, aren’t they? You choose not to believe God exists, I choose not to believe you exist. What’s the difference?I agree completely... we are to selfish and individualistic, to those who devlaue others view of truth because they believe their own is the best and to those who value others beliefs but keep quiet about there own (arrow towards myself). I believe we are in a time where we are almost so connected to each other that we have reached a pardox of communication. Instead of groups of friends meeting and hanging out we now gather online, we e-mail, we blog our life's to death. We chat and we have cell phone and I-pods that all keep us from connecting with the people who are right next to us, so while we think we are bringing humanity together thorugh technology we are actually separating them.
The same thing is true with Universalism and Pluralism, for why we think we will bring different peoples and religions together though this generality we are actually further separating them because they are no longer aloud to disagree.. because it is politically incorrect to disagree, it is politically incorrect to bring your beliefs into your work life or anywhere in public because it might offend someone else. Well, humanity needs to grow up... I'm tired of these people whining - we can't have so and so a judge or in office because they are a Christian and will try to impose those values. What? Isn't that why we are democratic, that's why we vote. It wouldn't bother me to have a Buddhist or Muslim in office - im sure there is... but no one is criticizing them, that's for sure. Far be it from us to actually hire someone of moral integrity in office, in politics. It's so hypocritical to be "open to everyone" and yet curse those who actually believe something and will stand up for it instead of emersing themselves into the tide of society.
~ Daniel
