Radical Orthodoxy

[DL82]

Anybody here familiar with the Radical Orthodoxy movement in theology? For example, Catherine Pickstock’s “After Writing: the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy”. They seem to be a movement mostly grounded in Catholicism, though there are a few Protestant theologians involved too.

As I understand it, the movement proposes a post-postmodern critique of a certain kind of false objectivism created by the non-contextual timelessness of writing, which turns ideas into commodities. The liturgical approach acknowledges that while truth itself may be objective and transcendant, our understanding of that truth must acknowledge our embodied, finite, subjective nature. This seems to be a response that defends objective truth while acknowledging the valid critiques of both modernist and postmodern approaches to language and knowledge.

At the heart of this seems to be an acknowledgement that scientific realism has its’ limits, an acknowledgement that all systems require a basis in faith of some kind or another, and a move from there to a revived/revised Thomistic deductivist approach to knowledge.

Is this ‘radical orthodoxy’ orthodox at all? Is it wrong to accept that, while modernism and postmodernism are not correct whole and entire, the criticisms made by modernists and postmodernists are worth listening to and responding to? If we don’t at least respond and take on board valid points, the faith will fall further and further away from anything which contemporary people will be able to understand.

I’m quite taken by the whole Radical Orthodoxy movement, but am interested to hear others’ views, particularly anybody with an appreciation of postmodern philosophy.

 

[mschrank]

No, because Catholic Orthodoxy holds that the thing-in-itself can be known… just like scientism- that’s probably why they fight so much.

Nobody can serve two masters. This is post-moderism in a weak form rather than in a strong form. Jesus says, “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free”- not that Truth cannot be known in-itself. That is eastern religion, Buddhism in particular. It especially reminds me of the Parable of the blind men and the elephants. The elephant is objectively there, one blind man grasps the tail, another the tush and another the side, and describe the elephant as different.

Real post-postmodernism is the rejection of Modernism.

 

[Contarini]

Anybody here familiar with the Radical Orthodoxy movement in theology? For example, Catherine Pickstock’s “After Writing: the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy”. They seem to be a movement mostly grounded in Catholicism, though there are a few Protestant theologians involved too.

It seems to be a largely Anglican phenomenon–at least both Pickstock and John Millbank are Anglicans. Though one friend of mine who studied with Millbank has converted to Catholicism, and I suspect he’s not the only one.

Edwin

 

[SeekingCatholic]

No, because Catholic Orthodoxy holds that the thing-in-itself can be known… just like scientism- that’s probably why they fight so much.

“Known” is not synonymous with “understood perfectly”, much less with “expressed perfectly in human language”.

There is a reason why “scientism” is, not just fighting, but winning, over “Catholic Orthodoxy”, why scientists are winning the battle and have won the previous battles with philosophers and theologians over the past 400 years. It’s because philosophers and theologians didn’t “know” as much as they thought they did. The more they fight science, the more they embarrass themselves. For the most part today however, philosophers and theologians attempt to incorporate the findings of science into their disciplines rather than deny them. That can only be to the good, as truth can’t contradict truth.

Nobody can serve two masters. This is post-moderism in a weak form rather than in a strong form. Jesus says, “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free”- not that Truth cannot be known in-itself.

Exactly right, which is why I have nothing but the most extreme contempt for the blatant disregard in some “traditional”/“orthodox” circles for the truths being discovered in science. Evolution is reality. The DNA evidence is undeniable. Deal with it.

And, they will never admit that Scripture and Church documents are attempts by humans to put divine truths, as imperfectly understood by humans, in imperfect human language, and therefore are going to be defective in some respect.

That is eastern religion, Buddhism in particular. It especially reminds me of the Parable of the blind men and the elephants. The elephant is objectively there, one blind man grasps the tail, another the tush and another the side, and describe the elephant as different.

This proves the point of the OP. No one can see the elephant in all its totality. They will each express their version of what they have observed, and in different ways.

Real post-postmodernism is the rejection of Modernism.

As stated in the OP, Modernism simply isn’t going to go away until the questions it raises are addressed.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

“Known” is not synonymous with “understood perfectly”, much less with “expressed perfectly in human language”.

There is a reason why “scientism” is, not just fighting, but winning, over “Catholic Orthodoxy”, why scientists are winning the battle and have won the previous battles with philosophers and theologians over the past 400 years. It’s because philosophers and theologians didn’t “know” as much as they thought they did.

I think it’s quite to opposite, most great scientists are very modest as to what their diciplin tells us. I don’t know what you mean by “winning” or “has won” over philosophy.

The more they fight science, the more they embarrass themselves. For the most part today however, philosophers and theologians attempt to incorporate the findings of science into their disciplines rather than deny them. That can only be to the good, as truth can’t contradict truth.

No, you have the cart before the horse.

The trend is that typically a philosophical diciplin will “spit out” a science once the philosophers have put it on firmer grounds, look at computer science, an emergence from mathematical Logic, developed by philosophers and mathematicians from the philosophical diciplin.

Exactly right, which is why I have nothing but the most extreme contempt for the blatant disregard in some “traditional”/“orthodox” circles for the truths being discovered in science. Evolution is reality. The DNA evidence is undeniable. Deal with it.

Of course it is, science can never discover “truth” it can approach what is likely true like an asymptote, something, of course, realised by philosophy, specifically logic.

Cognitive sciencfrom and ise comes part of philosophy of mind, neurobiology can tell us something about the brain, but in the absence of philosophy of mind it’s possible results are limited, look at Chomsky’s linguistics, intergrally part of philosophy etc.

And, they will never admit that Scripture and Church documents are attempts by humans to put divine truths, as imperfectly understood by humans, in imperfect human language, and therefore are going to be defective in some respect.

Now you are mixing Philosophers and Theologians

This proves the point of the OP. No one can see the elephant in all its totality. They will each express their version of what they have observed, and in different ways.

As stated in the OP, Modernism simply isn’t going to go away until the questions it raises are addressed.

alrighty

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I can’t find any decent articles on-line about this. Did anyone else have better luck? Also, what’s the Catholic Church’s position (if any) on “Radical Orthodoxy”? Are there any Catholics or Orthodox envolved in this movement?