James K. A. Smith gives an interesting introduction to postmodernity that could work for those with little or no theology\philosophy background. Each chapter focuses on a film that he uses to draw out the meaning behind bumper sticker phrases by the most noted of the deconstructionist philosophers. For a general setup of pomo in chapter one he uses ‘the Matrix.’ Chapter two is a discussion of Derrida, the superb film ‘Memento,’ and Derrida’s infamous line ‘there is nothing outside the text.’ Chapter three looks at Lyotard, ‘O Brother Where Art Thou?’ and those evil ‘metanarratives’ modernity gave us. Chapter four
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism?
James K. A. Smith gives an interesting introduction to postmodernity that could work for those with little or no theology\philosophy background. Each chapter focuses on a film that he uses to draw out the meaning behind bumper sticker phrases by the most noted of the deconstructionist philosophers. For a general setup of pomo in chapter one he uses ‘the Matrix.’ Chapter two is a discussion of Derrida, the superb film ‘Memento,’ and Derrida’s infamous line ‘there is nothing outside the text.’ Chapter three looks at Lyotard, ‘O Brother Where Art Thou?’ and those evil ‘metanarratives’ modernity gave us. Chapter four
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hello,
I wrote a small comment on your Christology and Omnipotence post referencing The Weakness of God by John Caputo earlier. I also read Jamie Smith's book and really liked its concise and simple presentation. When looking for other books by him I stumbled upon his RO texts and did not find them compelling whatsoever.
Yet, this was a couple of years ago and through an inspirational Roman Catholic professor who has a great respect for RO I found myself slowly warming up to the topic. Then I read an article by John Milbank called "Sovereignty, Empire, Capital and Terror" which resonated deeply with the post-secular affectations I hold. Lastly, I found this podcast on RO by the Canadian radio station CBC at churchandpomo.com. So I am leaving the gates wide open for RO to prove itself to me as the new response to modernism while intergrating post-structuralist thought and keeping the Church's past close at hand.
I am not convinced yet. If anything Christology seems the most fitting response (and I eagerly look forward to Caputo's "What would Jesus Deconstruct?" coming soon) but here are the links to the podcast to check out for yourself:
I found it at two different, excellent sites:
http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/index.php/
http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/conversation/2007/05/charles_taylor_.html
but here's the pure source: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20070604_2421.mp3
found here: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.html
just stumbled upon your blog, lots of interesting stuff.
Although, as someone preparing to move to the UK in two months to do postgraduate research with John Milbank and Connor Cunningham I am curious to know why RO is 'theological BO' in your opinion.
Personally I find it the most convincing argument against secularism and liberalism; and I think their (specifically Milbank and Pickstock's) re-reading of the history of western philosophy is brilliant. Specifically, I find their emphasis on a ontology based on participation quite amazing.
Regardless, I'd love to hear some thoughts coming from a different perspective.
Cheers.
Post a Comment