Talking or Knowing, What's Best?

Just a quick heads-up about an editorial in the Los Angeles Times today, a piece by Martin Kaplan titled "National Debate--Who Needs It?" It's worth a read, just because he puts a mortal wound in the entire postmodern hegemony by firmly declaring that he's tired of talking.

He just wants to know what's true.

Ironically, if postmodernism is true, then talking, really, is pointless. We should all be sitting alone in our interpretive community corners sucking our thumbs comfortable with our stories. If I can't find out anything that's authentically, objectively true by speaking with someone, then what's the point?

So then talking is invaluable. The key question Kaplan is concerned about is, what precisely is the truth that we should know from our discourse? Yes, it is true, talking just to talk is narcissism. Oh I'm not dismissing the truth of interactive engagement for the sake of vibrant relationship, but that itself is a truth.

Okay, I've italicized enough important points here. Just read the piece.

I can't finish this blog post, however, without a critical point that must be added. Kaplan suggests that the news media do more to just give us the truth about things rather than smugly offer "balance" among opinions. Yee-ahh, in a fantasy world where the news media is not the mouthpiece of the World System, an entity that must use the greatest deceit in fulfilling its duties.

I just think Truth can be found somewhere else, but I don't think even Kaplan is yet recovered from his own postmodernist daze to get it.

For some thoughts about knowing truth, look here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Wonderful Matter of Authentic Understanding

The Rationale of an Excommunication

Suffering the Stupid Person