What is postmodernism?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm not putting 2 and 2 together here. I would agree with Rousseau's thought that we are not born with original sin or in total depravity. The Bible teaches we come to an age when we know between good and evil. Until that time we are innocents like Adam and Eve were before they took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I'm not sure you answered my question about Chomsky. How did he prove the slate was not clean? Do you think the mind is the same as the brain? are you using those words interchangably?

The brain is the organ from which the mind arises. The physical characteristics of the brain will be manifest in the non-physical realm of the mind.

A ball-peen hammer could reduce any of us adults back to the level of "innocence" that you describe.

What Chomsky demonstrated, and what Pinker develops further is that we don't come into the world with a "blank slate." We come into the world with a "human nature" and "instincts" and that one of these instincts is for language. (More here).

If we come into the world with "anything at all," then the "slate" could not have been "clean" (and by "clean" they don't mean just "morally clean" - but "clean" of any programming at all).

We have propensities. Many of these propensities do have moral implications, thus we can sin and utimately we do (Romans 3:9-18). Rousseau's idea that there existed nations of "noble savages" who were free from any taint or corruption was naive at best. The truth of the matter is that the "savages" are just as war-like and fierce as the "corrupted" and "tainted" Europeans.

Where does the Bible "teaches we come to an age when we know between good and evil" and "Until that time we are innocents like Adam and Eve were before they took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Certainly, childhood has its innocence for "such is the Kingdom of God." But those children required a bloody sacrifice at Calvary as much as any of the rest of us. Why was that?

[pelathais]

Chomsky and later, Pinker's works are important because of the impact that they have had and will continue to have in academia. The "Ivory Towers" are no longer the exclusive domain of the socialist and anti-Western Poindexters like they have been for the last 50 years or so.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

That's all well and good. But. Just stay away from those vampires!

Vampires today are what aliens were in the 1990's. A convenient excuse for missing work.

Instead of "alien abduction" I just call my boss and leave a voice mail bemoaning the fact that I was the "victim of the undead during the night and will be a few hours late coming into the office."

[A.W. Bowman]

LOLOL pelathais - I love it! Truly I do!

Back in the 50's and 60's I was a wannabee philosopher. The references you used in your posts brought back fond memories of personal and formal studies and discussions that transported me into the realms of "Dimension X" and "One Step Beyond" (for those of you who might remember these old radio programs). Later in the 60's,while trying to develop a more comprehensive world view, I worked at integrating the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the two "theories" of relativity, and other such concepts into a coherent scheme. In truth, those were fun days. But, alas, I had to allow those days to give way to the more concrete necessities of earning a living. I never became good enough to support myself (or a family) following after esoteric pursuits. So, I stuck my head up and beyond the clouds and became a systems engineer with a specialty in space flight operations.

Now, in my later years, I am simply a disciple of Jesus Christ, sharing some of what it is that I think I know about a few elements of spiritual knowledge. I guess I have come full circle, but my original starting point has also shifted in time, space and in substance, so now I am again left in a void, searching again for that one point of light that might bring understanding.

In my youth I despised the book of Ecclesiastes - now, it is one of my favorites.

Again, pel, thank you. I really enjoyed that trip back into time - and, yes, I still apply some of the principles and methodologies I learned back then (plus a few new ones) to my studies today. The difference between then and now? Today I attempt to apply more wisdom and less enthusiasm in conducting, and sharing, my studies than I exercised in my youth. History will determine which approach produced the best results.