1/
Since my review of Jesus and John Wayne came out three critiques have emerged I want to engage with:
1. I misrepresented Jonathan Culler (@KSPRIOR)
2. My analysis of deconstruction is wrong (many people)
3. My review of J&JW misses the point (@kkdumez @Scott_m_coley)
Since my review of Jesus and John Wayne came out three critiques have emerged I want to engage with:
1. I misrepresented Jonathan Culler (@KSPRIOR)
2. My analysis of deconstruction is wrong (many people)
3. My review of J&JW misses the point (@kkdumez @Scott_m_coley)
2/
There are others, but I can't deal with all of them, so I will limit myself to those three. I shall attempt to answer each of them in turn, with the idea that each leads into the next.
I hope that I am able to clearly articulate why I disagree with each.
Let's begin...
There are others, but I can't deal with all of them, so I will limit myself to those three. I shall attempt to answer each of them in turn, with the idea that each leads into the next.
I hope that I am able to clearly articulate why I disagree with each.
Let's begin...
3/
The first critique is:
1. @wokal_distance misrepresented (and misunderstood) Jonathan Culler when quoting him in the piece.
Before I begin my response, here is @ksprior making that claim in her own words:
The first critique is:
1. @wokal_distance misrepresented (and misunderstood) Jonathan Culler when quoting him in the piece.
Before I begin my response, here is @ksprior making that claim in her own words:
4/
Culler says deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of mastery. I disagree, I say it leads to nihilism and relativism.
To make that point I quoted Culler (red underline) then said HOWEVER to set up my disagreement (green box) , then said he is wrong (blue underline)
Culler says deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of mastery. I disagree, I say it leads to nihilism and relativism.
To make that point I quoted Culler (red underline) then said HOWEVER to set up my disagreement (green box) , then said he is wrong (blue underline)
5/
@ksprior tweeted a response from Culler where Culler said he disagrees with me and says again he thinks Deconstruction leads to feeling of mastery not nihilism.
I know.
The point was to say "Culler thinks such and so, but I Michael Young disagree and think the opposite"....
@ksprior tweeted a response from Culler where Culler said he disagrees with me and says again he thinks Deconstruction leads to feeling of mastery not nihilism.
I know.
The point was to say "Culler thinks such and so, but I Michael Young disagree and think the opposite"....
6/
To make it even more clear:
In lines in the red box are me saying "here is what Jonathan Culler thinks."
The lines in the blue box are me saying "It might at first appear that Jonathan Culler is right, but he is in fact wrong."
To conclude this first point...
To make it even more clear:
In lines in the red box are me saying "here is what Jonathan Culler thinks."
The lines in the blue box are me saying "It might at first appear that Jonathan Culler is right, but he is in fact wrong."
To conclude this first point...
7/
I never intended to say, suggest, or otherwise indicate that Jonathan Culler thinks anything other than "deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of master." He reiterated again that he does think this.
I did disagree with him and say he was wrong. I stand by it.
I never intended to say, suggest, or otherwise indicate that Jonathan Culler thinks anything other than "deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of master." He reiterated again that he does think this.
I did disagree with him and say he was wrong. I stand by it.
8/
FWIW Searle also disagrees with Culler, but for different reasons. Searle does *NOT* say deconstruction leads to relativism/nihilism, but he *does* say Culler and Derrida's example don't convince him that deconstruction can distinguish genuine knowledge from it's counterfeits:
FWIW Searle also disagrees with Culler, but for different reasons. Searle does *NOT* say deconstruction leads to relativism/nihilism, but he *does* say Culler and Derrida's example don't convince him that deconstruction can distinguish genuine knowledge from it's counterfeits:
9/
I do not think any of this constitutes my having misrepresented Searle or Culler. I never said Searle thought deconstruction leads to relativism or nihilism.
I did say Culler thinks deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of mastery. Culler does in fact think this.
I do not think any of this constitutes my having misrepresented Searle or Culler. I never said Searle thought deconstruction leads to relativism or nihilism.
I did say Culler thinks deconstruction leads to knowledge and feelings of mastery. Culler does in fact think this.
10/
To breifly defend myself, I think deconstruction leads to a world in which there's no objective truth, and this leads to relativism/nihilism.
In Radical Heremeneutics Derridan Scholar John Caputo claims: "the truth is there is no truth."
Before anyone jumps at me...
To breifly defend myself, I think deconstruction leads to a world in which there's no objective truth, and this leads to relativism/nihilism.
In Radical Heremeneutics Derridan Scholar John Caputo claims: "the truth is there is no truth."
Before anyone jumps at me...
11/
My interpretation of Caputo here (that he actually believes there is no truth) is taken from an essay by William Lane Craig where he takes Caputo to mean that, and then refutes Caputo on the grounds Caputo's claim is self-defeating👇
My interpretation of Caputo here (that he actually believes there is no truth) is taken from an essay by William Lane Craig where he takes Caputo to mean that, and then refutes Caputo on the grounds Caputo's claim is self-defeating👇
12/
Attack me all you like, but I think that if we accept deconstruction as a method then Caputo is actually correct and there is no truth. However, because I think Caputo is wrong about Deconstruction being a good method (it isn't), I think he is also wrong about truth...
Attack me all you like, but I think that if we accept deconstruction as a method then Caputo is actually correct and there is no truth. However, because I think Caputo is wrong about Deconstruction being a good method (it isn't), I think he is also wrong about truth...
13/
Finally, @KSPrior claims my work is shoddy. If she wants to argue my work is shoddy she will have to do more than accuse me of misrepresenting someone when I can show clearly that I did not misrepresent them.
To disagree is not to misrepresent.
On to point 2...
Finally, @KSPrior claims my work is shoddy. If she wants to argue my work is shoddy she will have to do more than accuse me of misrepresenting someone when I can show clearly that I did not misrepresent them.
To disagree is not to misrepresent.
On to point 2...
14/
**2. My analysis of deconstruction is wrong.**
The argument is that I have mistaken one type of deconstruction for another, that there are many types of deconstruction, and I have critiqued Derrida's version of deconstruction, not the deconstruction Du Mez is using...
**2. My analysis of deconstruction is wrong.**
The argument is that I have mistaken one type of deconstruction for another, that there are many types of deconstruction, and I have critiqued Derrida's version of deconstruction, not the deconstruction Du Mez is using...
15/
Among the types of deconstruction cited were
1. Deconstruction as philosophical tool
2. Deconstruction as post-structuralist theory,
3. Deconstruction as literary tool
4. Deconstruction as a way of critiquing evangelicalism
The claim is I engaged with #1 when Du Mez used #4
Among the types of deconstruction cited were
1. Deconstruction as philosophical tool
2. Deconstruction as post-structuralist theory,
3. Deconstruction as literary tool
4. Deconstruction as a way of critiquing evangelicalism
The claim is I engaged with #1 when Du Mez used #4
16/
To respond, I do not think the 4 types of deconstruction above are entirely disconnected. In fact, it is my view that 2, 3, and 4, are fruit of the tree of #1. That does not mean they are all the same. However, my view is #1 influences all the others. I am not saying...
To respond, I do not think the 4 types of deconstruction above are entirely disconnected. In fact, it is my view that 2, 3, and 4, are fruit of the tree of #1. That does not mean they are all the same. However, my view is #1 influences all the others. I am not saying...
17/
That what is true of any one of those is true of them all. That said, I think there is something of a dodge at work here. Derrida's work was picked up by other disciplines and Deconstruction evovled as it moved through, literary criticism, Critical Theory, philosophy...
That what is true of any one of those is true of them all. That said, I think there is something of a dodge at work here. Derrida's work was picked up by other disciplines and Deconstruction evovled as it moved through, literary criticism, Critical Theory, philosophy...
18/
Gender Studies, Feminist Theory, and a host of other academic disciplines. These are all like members of a family, they are different no doubt, but they all share some of the same DNA, and my view is that the DNA from deconstruction that is shared by all of them is...
Gender Studies, Feminist Theory, and a host of other academic disciplines. These are all like members of a family, they are different no doubt, but they all share some of the same DNA, and my view is that the DNA from deconstruction that is shared by all of them is...
19/
1. All Views are historically and socially constructed.
and
2. There are no objective and timeless propositions. Propositions must be interpreted, and interpretation is a product of historical and cultural circumstances and done from a particular cultural or social position
1. All Views are historically and socially constructed.
and
2. There are no objective and timeless propositions. Propositions must be interpreted, and interpretation is a product of historical and cultural circumstances and done from a particular cultural or social position
20/
I think, the vast majority of people doing deconstruction in the academic world hold to both #1 and #2 above.
They may disagree with my conclusion that the conjunction of these leads to relativism (In Paper Machine Derrida denied he was a relativist, see pic) but...
I think, the vast majority of people doing deconstruction in the academic world hold to both #1 and #2 above.
They may disagree with my conclusion that the conjunction of these leads to relativism (In Paper Machine Derrida denied he was a relativist, see pic) but...
21/
but they would not reject of #1 and #2 and say
1. "views are not historically and culturally constructed."
2. "there are objective, timelessly true propositions that are not interpreted by people in cultural contexts influenced by historical circumstances"
now...
but they would not reject of #1 and #2 and say
1. "views are not historically and culturally constructed."
2. "there are objective, timelessly true propositions that are not interpreted by people in cultural contexts influenced by historical circumstances"
now...
22/
Du Mez responded to this and said she accepts #1, but rejects #2. (pic 1)
We now reach point #3 namely that My review of J&JW misses the point because I saddle Du Mez with a view that she does not hold.
@scott_m_coley makes this point (Pics 2+3)
Almost home, let's finish!
Du Mez responded to this and said she accepts #1, but rejects #2. (pic 1)
We now reach point #3 namely that My review of J&JW misses the point because I saddle Du Mez with a view that she does not hold.
@scott_m_coley makes this point (Pics 2+3)
Almost home, let's finish!
23/
Du Mez links to NYT article where Du Mez says "Understanding that beliefs have a history does not preclude a commitment to truths outside of history,"
I am glad that she thinks this, and, if I have understood her here it gets directly to the heart of where we disagree....
Du Mez links to NYT article where Du Mez says "Understanding that beliefs have a history does not preclude a commitment to truths outside of history,"
I am glad that she thinks this, and, if I have understood her here it gets directly to the heart of where we disagree....
24/
My objection is not that understanding that beliefs have a history makes it impossible to have objective, timeless propositions. I know that all beliefs have a history, and we ought to understand how a given belief was formed. But that is not my objection...
My objection is not that understanding that beliefs have a history makes it impossible to have objective, timeless propositions. I know that all beliefs have a history, and we ought to understand how a given belief was formed. But that is not my objection...
25/
My view is that Du Mez accepted:
2. propositions must always be interpreted, and interpretation is always a product of historical and cultural circumstances and always done from a particular cultural and social position.
I think THAT undermines objective truth.
now....
My view is that Du Mez accepted:
2. propositions must always be interpreted, and interpretation is always a product of historical and cultural circumstances and always done from a particular cultural and social position.
I think THAT undermines objective truth.
now....
26/
In her book "A New Gospel for Women" Du Mez says: " biblical interpretation, and not just the Bible itself, can take on an air of timelessness; if the Holy Spirit is not bound by time, neither is the insight wrought by the Spirit."
And this is where we come to a head...
In her book "A New Gospel for Women" Du Mez says: " biblical interpretation, and not just the Bible itself, can take on an air of timelessness; if the Holy Spirit is not bound by time, neither is the insight wrought by the Spirit."
And this is where we come to a head...
27/
Du Mez says interpretation are not timeless.
And this is the point: If no interpretation is timeless, then none of the beliefs formed by interpreting scripture are timeless, are they? After all, if you do not like one interpretation, you can always make for yourself another.
Du Mez says interpretation are not timeless.
And this is the point: If no interpretation is timeless, then none of the beliefs formed by interpreting scripture are timeless, are they? After all, if you do not like one interpretation, you can always make for yourself another.
28/
Just like Searle said Social constructivists have a philosophy in which "If we do not like a fact that others have constructed, we can construct another fact that we prefer." Du Mez creates a theology where if we do not like one interpretation, we construct another we prefer.
Just like Searle said Social constructivists have a philosophy in which "If we do not like a fact that others have constructed, we can construct another fact that we prefer." Du Mez creates a theology where if we do not like one interpretation, we construct another we prefer.
29/
If the Bible is to be timeless, it must contain timeless truths we can exegete. it must have objective meaning, ad thus there must be an objective point of reference for the meaning of scripture which prevents people from interpreting scripture in any way they like...
If the Bible is to be timeless, it must contain timeless truths we can exegete. it must have objective meaning, ad thus there must be an objective point of reference for the meaning of scripture which prevents people from interpreting scripture in any way they like...
30/
To quote Gordon Fee (who gave me my greek Bible😀)
"In contrast to such subjectivity, we insist that the original meaning of the text — as much as it is in our power to discern it — is the objective point of control."
- How to Read the Bible for All That It's Worth. p.28
To quote Gordon Fee (who gave me my greek Bible😀)
"In contrast to such subjectivity, we insist that the original meaning of the text — as much as it is in our power to discern it — is the objective point of control."
- How to Read the Bible for All That It's Worth. p.28
31/
If there is an objective meaning to scripture, then there are objective timeless interpretations the applications may change, but the objective truth does not.
This is exactly the point of contention. let me spell it out...
If there is an objective meaning to scripture, then there are objective timeless interpretations the applications may change, but the objective truth does not.
This is exactly the point of contention. let me spell it out...
32/
Du Mez thinks she can have truth outside history without timeless interpretations.
I disagree, and I think that if your interpretations are not timeless, then any truth you base on that interpretation isn't timeless either...
Du Mez thinks she can have truth outside history without timeless interpretations.
I disagree, and I think that if your interpretations are not timeless, then any truth you base on that interpretation isn't timeless either...
33/
We disagree over the implications of Kristins Du Mez ideas. She thinks she can still have objective truth, I think following Du Mez (and Culler, and Derrida, and Foucault) to their logical conclusion leaves us with relativism.
We disagree over the implications of Kristins Du Mez ideas. She thinks she can still have objective truth, I think following Du Mez (and Culler, and Derrida, and Foucault) to their logical conclusion leaves us with relativism.
34/
I'm DONE!!!!!
This is long, and I fully understand and expect many people to ignore it. That is fine.
I also recognize that I am not entitled to anyone's time or a response.
That said, I appreciate those who read this far.
Thank You :)
I'm DONE!!!!!
This is long, and I fully understand and expect many people to ignore it. That is fine.
I also recognize that I am not entitled to anyone's time or a response.
That said, I appreciate those who read this far.
Thank You :)
35/
The contradiction at the heart of Du Mez' work is simple:
Du mez says there are truths outsode history (pic 1) but there are no timeless interpretations of scripture (pic 2).
So....
"How do you get a timeless truth from scripture if there's no timeless interpretation?"
The contradiction at the heart of Du Mez' work is simple:
Du mez says there are truths outsode history (pic 1) but there are no timeless interpretations of scripture (pic 2).
So....
"How do you get a timeless truth from scripture if there's no timeless interpretation?"
36/
Unless she wants to say the Bible means whatever God needs it to mean for each time and places amd the Spirit just tells us whatever it means at a given time (I'm pentacostal and this is to far even for me), then she has a contradiction to solve.
Unless she wants to say the Bible means whatever God needs it to mean for each time and places amd the Spirit just tells us whatever it means at a given time (I'm pentacostal and this is to far even for me), then she has a contradiction to solve.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
