The Primacy of Reason

Even though I've finished up and turned in my last paper for NT670 Colossians, and have moved on to prep work for my two weeks of intensives in September in St. Paul (6 credits in two weeks... that's why they call them intensives...  yikes!), I can't put away my folder from that last class without one last parting comment.

The authors of Colossians Remixed had a section on truth and relativism which I found intriguing. In it they referenced Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. Here's a quote:

"Surely Allan Bloom was right when he wrote: 'There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.'

"All of this relativity spells the closing, not the opening, of the American mind, says Bloom.  [...] Bloom's lament about relativistic students needs to be heard, understood and evaluated in terms that are relative to Professor Bloom himself [...] a professor with classical training and a classicist understanding of the world. His statement about relativism is, if you will, a relative statement.

"He insists that reason has a 'special claim' on us, that we need to submit to the 'primacy of reason' because where the 'rule of reason' holds sway the 'voice of reason is not drowned out by the loud voices of ... various 'commitments'." [...] Let us give you a postmodern translation of that: the hegemonic, absolute and finally authoritative committment to reason trumps all other commitments."

"All that we are saying is that the commitment to reason is just that - a commitment.  And this commitment has no more rational foundation to it than any other commitment."

The authors take pains, then, to show that this commitment to reason is something we've inherited from the Enlightenment and is foundational to Modernism (with its meta-narrative of continuous progress toward perfection through science and education).  They point out that foundational to Postmodernism is a deconstruction of this Modernist commitment to reason (and its pursuit of empirical, objective, and therefore universal, truth).

This raises a question.  Or two.

What if one made a commitment, not to reason, but to relation? What if one sees relationality as primary, not rationality?  What if one sees wholeness in relationships as more important than objectivity and accumulating knowledge?  How does that change one's ethics and moral decision making?  If expanded to a culture, how does it change social custom and public policy?

How, indeed?  Frankly, I'm so embedded in rationality that the whole idea makes me nervous.  But it's also exhilarating to think that decisions could be made from a completely different value center.  And really, they are being made that way - all the time.  The culture around me is heading this way, and I'm attempting to grasp it.

But wait, there's more!

What if, instead of a commitment to reason or to relation, one made a commitment to inspiration?  What if one sees spirituality as primary, not relationality or rationality?  What if one sees being attuned to the meta-physical as more important than being attuned to the physical?  What if revelation trumps reason?  (or relationships)?  What if the presence of God is the highest value?  How does that change ethics, decision making, social custom, policy?  (think: Amish, Quakers, etc.)

Woh.  I'm a little dizzy.  I think I need to sit down.  (with a beer..)