Replies the Happy Tutor:

Take the 25 years that this discussion has preoccupied the humanities. During that time the PC was invented, the Internet came alive, the human genome was mapped, and our posterity sold. Whatever concept of truth those folks are using is not God, but good enough for practical purposes. The payoff in the humanities for trivializing truth is what? What has been gained? Undermining the Father, who died long ago.

But even dead gods cast shadows. If by “Truth” you mean “good enough for practical purposes,” then you and I are in fundamental agreement. But then we are also pragmatists and not postmodernists. And we are talking of “truths” not “Truth.” (Richard Rorty and Gary Sauer-Thompson applaud us.)

I am upset by “Truth” not because of anything the last few decades of the humanities have put forward (although I find them helpful) but because of what “Truth” does to people. I contend that “Truth” is an idol that leads to sin. It purports to have a God’s™ eye view when none is available. It demands false pride as its sacrifice, and where there is pride there will follow abuse. In short, “Truth” lies.

My charge against “Truth” is not epistemological; it is ethical and theological — what I am raising is the question of praxis. “Good enough for practical purposes” is fine. But wouldn’t “good enough for eudaimonia” or “good enough for shalom” be better? If we have notions like eudaimonia or shalom, why do we need “Truth?”

The cause of postmodern discourse is theological: the dead God™. But the postmodernists evade the theological question for the epistemological and antimetaphysical. As you say, we must call upon the muses for new narratives in the meantime. A return to polytheism, or at least to henotheism. But who shall be our gods? I am reminded of Sam Delaney’s Neveryon series. The gods of that port city are nameless craftfolk doing their best to perfect their universe, each according to his ability — a pragmatist pantheon to be sure. Yet on the perimeter of the city-state roam named, known (and knowing) monsters who enforce the borders and demand blood sacrifices. How are we to evade that pantheon?

I am not trying to revive (or prolong) the Truth game. Far from it. I’m trying instead to reframe the question as a more constructive theological one: Which god shall we serve? and, Who shall we become? If the humanities had asked these questions, perhaps the last thirty years would have been more productive. At least scitech knows what it’s going for, eh?