>A thing is what it is, regardless of the name used for it.<
I also reject what is called postmodernism. Really postmodernism is simply modernism taken to it logical conclusions. It would be humorous if the practical implications were not so serious. I think G K might be alluding to and rejecting Kant's notion of "the thing in itself" which in my admittedly limited philosophical understanding is unknowable, but perhaps he's just paraphrasing Willie.
I reject the notion that apodictic certainty is a prerequisite to real knowledge. It boils down to ones view of epistemology and the condition that we as human beings find ourselves in. Rationalism leaves no room for emotion, intuition or Revelation. It draws a line across the sky that becomes a barrier to so much of what we intuitively know. Francis Schaeffer termed this the "line of despair" and notes that we as modern human beings find ourselves trapped underneath that line even though we can't live that way. Given that: the only way out for modern man is a "leap of faith" into mysticism. He laid the blame for this on Aquinas but I think others have correctly pointed out that it was Kant who should shoulder much of the blame. I think that you have correctly identified the problem "The only out is to give morality an extrahuman fulcrum." but since you don't like the solution, you are basically stuck down there.
"Thus to me ... names have real but not limitless power."
Given a rationalistic view of the world, names which attach emotional baggage are really meaningless. But that just underscores the fact that Human Beings can't live that way. We are not computers we are Persons, created as moral, thinking, emotional, Human Beings after the image of a Personal, Good, Rational, and Loving Creator, who can and has, communicated with us.
We all KNOW that it's truly wrong to kill an innocent child. Calling it something else won't change that. |
