From a forum on academia.edu: I understand that the Muslims who attacked Charlie Hebdo were offended. After becoming acquainted with CHs mockery of Christianity, I was also offended. The problem for Islam is that a faithful interpretation of the Koran, as well as the Al-Hadith only further legitimizes and provides justification for the kinds of violence perpetuated by so-called Islamic Extremists. Unfortunately, many in our post-postmodern society fail to see that pluralism is no less hegemonic than Islam or any other ideological/metaphysical/religious system. The problem, in other words, is that of worldviews. Postpostmodernism does not legitimate or provide justification for moral outrage at any kind of exclusivism, or any kind of behaviors or thoughts not conducive to dialogue. More problematically, however, that if dialogue suggests that ones ideology is subject to radical changes, consequent to encountering socio-politico-anthropological exigencies, then not even pluralism can enter into dialogue, since pluralism, by definition, excludes exclusivism. Without a standard by which we may judge ideas as being rational or irrational, how can any criticism of the CH attackers actions be taken as anything more than mere opinion? There is no dialogue possible, therefore, when there is no shared epistemological and ethical foundation, or when a clearly shared foundation is unjustifiable or unjustified or ignored or rejected without reason. For Spinoza, the irony resides in the fact that he was, more or less, a pantheist. This implies that he may have been upset with the murder of his friend, but the murder itself would be ontologically necessary, the historical hinge upon which previous causal realities and future contingencies swing. But a moral offense? An objective and savage unreasonableness? Nope.
Posted on: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:40:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015