‘Unique’ used to mean unique: just one, and no other. Something was either unique, or it wasn’t.
But now we have expressions
like “very unique” (why not: very unusual?), or “almost unique” (why not: very
rare?). This is more than thoughtless
use of language; this is a revolt against the very idea of anything being… well, unique. The same demolition principle has been
applied to the word ‘truth’.
“What is truth?” quipped
Pilate. Depends who you’re asking. An Enlightenment modernist might have said,
“That which exists independently of my opinion about it; that which correlates
with the way the world actually is. Hurricanes
occur; and if you don’t believe in them you might find yourself in the middle
of one, regardless of your scepticism.”
But a Postmodernist might say (if a
philosopher): “Truth is what a given society/speech community agrees about for
the sake of social order. Thus to drive
on the left is truth in Britain; to drive on the right is truth in France. If we decided otherwise, truth would change.
If we decided murder was good, it would become so.”
A Postmodernist who is
not a philosopher, but who has been subjected to the trickle-down effect of
ideas, might lose the community focus in favour of individuality. “Truth is what’s true for me. There is your
truth and my truth. It’s true if it works for you. Etc.” (And yet it somehow doesn’t apply if my truth
is that I was born to be a serial rapist: there the community thing kicks in
again, over-riding the personal.)
A problem with both these Postmodernist positions is highlighted in
the recent film The Debt, starring
Helen Mirren. Without wanting to give
away too much of the plot to those who have not seen it, The Debt is about the attempt of three Mossad agents to capture an ex-Nazi doctor and take him back to trial in Israel. In practice, he escapes. To return to Israel without him would be to
expose Israel to national humiliation.
The three come up with a very Postmodern solution: truth is what the
three in the room decide it is. The
truth, therefore, is that the doctor was shot while trying to get away.
The tension in the film
is the mismatch between this truth and the actual truth: and what denial of
reality can do once the past catches up with you. One might describe the film as
post-Postmodern: a rejection of the Postmodern truth that truth is what you say
it is, or what you want it to be.
A less-cerebral example
of the principle occurs in Pretty Woman.
“What’s your name?” the client asks the call-girl. “What do you want it to be?” Truth, fantasy what’s the difference?
But let’s assume high
motive, and follow the philosophical position for a moment. Suppose we had a conversation on Thursday
21st November 2013. But did
we? It’s only ‘true’ because we both agree
within our speech community to call it ‘Thursday’, and using the Gregorian
calendar. By a Chinese or Muslim reckoning
it would be a different year; in French,
it would be a different word. But, surely,
that conversation happened at a
particular (‘unique’: in the original sense) period of time in the history of the Universe? It happened, and was unlike any other moment,
regardless of how we chose to nominate it.
The problem with the ‘your truth/my truth’ position is that it, too,
assumes high motive. But what about low
motive: what used – not to put too fine a point on it – to be called ‘lying’?
Suppose you are stationary in your car, and I
collide into the back of you. That is
your truth. (And also, what actually happened).
My truth might be that you stopped suddenly. I have a vested interest in saying that;
otherwise, it would be my fault. And an
insurance claim won’t be satisfied with different individual truths, not even
in an era of Postmodernism. It will suspect that there are simply two variant
accounts of the same event: and they can’t both be true since they conflict
with one another. And money is involved
in deciding which verdict is the correct one. When Postmodernism hits reality, it crumples
like the rear of a car.
During the Profumo sex scandal, call-girl Mandy Rice-Davies was
summonsed as a witness. Told by the
Judge that Lord Astor denied a sexual relationship with her, she gave the reply
that has passed into legend: “Well, he would wouldn’t he?”
Quite so. How would a Postmodernist deal with that?
Hmm, Postmodernists.
ReplyDeleteNot generally well thought of in, for want of a better term, I will call the sceptical community, ugly term though it is, and less than entirely accurate since trying to get sceptics to agree is often compared with herding cats. For all that, though, I have seen near unanimity in finding extremely funny the joke played upon a Postmod academic journal by a physics Professor named Alan Sokal.
To quote Wiki -
"The Sokal affair, also known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]
The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[3][4] On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense...structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics"
Is it true that Sokal did a good job in exposing Postmodernism as word salad that is, as Pauli once claimed of an idea 'not even wrong'?
Is it true that Sokal acted unethically in submitting what he knew to be nonsense for publication?
I tent to the former view - quite strongly.
Regarding Ms Rice-Davies, a little thought crossed my mind. Apparently, from what I read at the time and subsequently, her testimony was delivered in such a way - by which I presume encompasses demeanour and tone of voice - that from that point on, despite her profession and lack of eminence, she was immediately believed and Profumo wasn't.
I wonder if there would have been a difference had she insisted on appearing in court in a veil.
David
John Lennox said a great thing about the Four Horseman was that not one was a Postmodernist. They all though truth was out there.
DeleteI think 'Transgressing the Boundaries' is great, and 'Fashionable Nonsense' is a hoot. I'm with Sokal all the way. As he said, anyone seriously thinking gravity is social construct could jump out of his window: forty floors or so up.
I think Dawkins' dismissal of Postmodernism - why choose a Boeing rather than a flying carpet? - is the best on the market.
The veil. Can't say. Too speculative. And, anyway, then was another country.
Hello Explorer. I had never noticed until a few moments ago that you have a blog of your own. I'd have come here earlier if I'd known.
DeleteJust a few days ago I came across this sentence in a book by an author I had thought would know better:
However, once the idea of two Messiahs had been considered at all feasible, correspondences were found in Jewish thought both before and after the Qumran period, which showed that the idea was not, after all, so very uniqe.
John Allegro, the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal, Penguin, p. 168. "Reprinted with revisions" 1958, Second edition 1964. (This copy printed in 1974.)
Regards,
Brian
:
Hello Brian:
DeleteIt's a modest affair. All pre-existing essays from the past few years. (There are published ones, but those are under my own name). I thought I'd put them on line for whoever might be interested while I got on with my novel: due for completion in 2014.
Since the novel makes no concessions to Political Correctness, it might be impossible to find a publisher. I might self-publish on the Web. (Money is not the motive.) The Blog helps me to find my way around the electronic maze.
Lovely stuff here Mr Explorer.
ReplyDeleteBeing a bit of a romantic, it reminds me of conversations enjoyed in my younger Israeli days,
in a desert town
sitting around a table in the evening,
nursing a cold beer or glass of wine,
the warm breeze sighing through the pine trees,
crickets chirping in the background, faraway stars twinkling in a velvet sky,
Gently laughing,
Reminiscing,
Arguing a point or two
Letting our thoughts roam far and near
and enjoying mysteries in friendly company...
You should have a bigger crew Explorer.
Many thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Delete