Fish on Deconstruction, Pt 2

Apparently around 600 people commented on Stanley Fish’s earlier article on French deconstruction, so he has posted a response. Here he argues that deconstruction only disrupts the idea of a theory of knowledge (epistemology), not the ideas we use on a day-to-day basis. Deconstruction, for Fish, is apolitical, because “theories of knowledge” don’t really contribute to politics anyway, so whether you have one or not doesn’t really matter. His argument is basically pragmatic, and he tips his hand when he starts quoting Dewey. In essence, this is a recapitulation of Richard Rorty’s thesis in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. That Rorty went on to work with Continental philosophers gives some validity to the deconstruction-pragmatist connection Fish is trying to make, but I wonder if Continentals would really accept a pragmatist label.

El Papa & The UN

The Pope kicked it over at the United Nations HQ yesterday, giving a great 30 minute speech on the importance of human rights in resolving international disputes, and the indispensability of the transcendent in grounding human rights. Here are some highlights:

On science and technology:

Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been applied. Notwithstanding the enormous benefits that humanity can gain, some instances of this represent a clear violation of the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity. Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation. This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.

On transcendence and human rights:

The founding of the United Nations, as we know, coincided with the profound upheavals that humanity experienced when reference to the meaning of transcendence and natural reason was abandoned, and in consequence, freedom and human dignity were grossly violated. When this happens, it threatens the objective foundations of the values inspiring and governing the international order and it undermines the cogent and inviolable principles formulated and consolidated by the United Nations. When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.

It is evident, though, that the rights recognized and expounded in the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God’s creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights.

On conversion and justice:

Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this, since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and woman favours conversion of heart, which then leads to a commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote justice and peace.

On the Church and the UN:

The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience “of humanity”, developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world. Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to sustain humanity’s hope for a better world and if we are to create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and guarantee of rights for future generations.

(The full text is available here and the NY Times has a cool interactive page with the video and text.)

Fish on Deconstruction

The noted American literary critic Stanley Fish has written an excellent summary of postmodern philosophy in his latest column for the NY Times. Especially helpful is his presentation of Anglo-American and Continental postmodernists as offering similar, rather than competing, solutions to Enlightenment problematics. Of course, were he to bring postmodern Aristotelians like Alasdair MacIntyre into the picture, his narrative would become much more complicated. But a useful introduction nonetheless.