Postmodernism: Clarifying A Straw Man

I'm very frustrated with a misconception that Christian apologists sometimes promote when they write or speak about the prevalent philosophy called postmodernism.  Though many Christians falsely understand postmodernism to be an outright denial that truth or objectivity exists, true postmodernism is very different from this, amounting to a specific type of skepticism about particular truth claims instead of an assault on the abstract concept and metaphysical reality of truth itself.

In many ways I have a thoroughly postmodern epistemology [1]--which emphasizes that all sensory, ethical, and aesthetic perceptions are entirely subjective, though I recognize that postmodern ontology--denial of objective truth itself--is self-refuting bullshit.  It is one thing to say "There is no truth" or "Truth is not objective"; the first statement is self-refuting (as is the second), as if it is correct then the statement itself is ironically true, proving that truth exists axiomatically, and the second statement is objectively true if it is correct, proving that truth is inescapably objective.  However, it is an entirely different matter to say "My perceptions of morality, aesthetics, and the external world are subjective and thus I do not know if they are correct"; this statement admits that reality exists objectively and independently of the sayer's awareness but that the perceptions of the speaker are limited and subjective.  The first phrases are incoherent and impossible, but the third is inescapably true.  Truth exists unaffected by my desires, awareness, and perception, but almost all truth claims are nothing more than fallacious statements and social constructs.  This is a distinction of supreme importance when it comes to analyzing postmodernism and its followers.

With this understanding acquired, it becomes apparent that postmodern epistemology will not be refuted by proving that positions denying objective truth refute themselves, as this is not the claim advanced by the more sophisticated and thoughtful postmodernists.  According to the accurate definition of postmodern epistemology I provided, I am a postmodernist even while I am also an objectivist, a rationalist, and even a Christian.  In one sense, everyone is a postmodernist in the sense that they must operate according to the postmodern epistemology I described above.  Simply reminding people of inviolable axioms and the laws of logic does nothing to threaten postmodernism as an epistemology and only proves that denials of objective truth, or postmodern ontology, are pathetic intellectual failures that disprove their own claims.

Recently I have descended into a type of existential crisis and have found myself faced with the truth of the epistemological ramifications of postmodernism.  Of course, along with this new focus on the nature of perception came an awareness of how people often commit the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting postmodernism in such a way as to easily "refute" and dismiss it, ignoring what postmodern epistemology really encompasses.  Christians, it's time to adapt your arguments and broaden your understanding.  It will truly enhance your apologetic credibility among the more intelligent postmodernists.


There is often alot of straw in the room when Christian
apologists talk about postmodernism.

[1].  Remember that epistemology deals with how knowledge is obtained or justified and ontology addresses how reality is.  As such, I am entirely consistent and rational to say that truth itself is objective and transcendent while admitting that many of my perceptions, if not filtered by reason and logic, are nothing more than subjective perceptions which are by nature arbitrary.  With this distinction made, it can be understood that serious postmodernists are clearly not saying that there is no truth or that truth itself is subjective and malleable, but that our perceptions of it are often nothing more than perceptions and do not necessarily reflect objective reality, but only our subjective apprehensions.