What is Truth? Post-Christianity and Metaphysics Pt 2

Hello Everyone,

Welcome back for another week of metaphysics talk!

To be honest, I don’t find metaphysics at all exciting. But, but, but, but(!), I can see that this will be the question increasingly asked of post-Christianity so I want to engage it. To give some language and articulation of thoughts to this mind twisting subject.

So let’s jump right in!

Here is the thing about metaphysics and post-Christianity. The way post-theist and post-Christian thought neither affirms or denies theism and/or atheism, it is the same with metaphysics. Post-Christian thought seeks to move past metaphysics without affirming or denying it but rather indicting it. Saying, not only is it not good enough, but it actually kills the task of faith.

Metaphysics believes it is on the noble mission of accessing the real, or at least attempting to find intelligible ways of talking about it. What it doesn’t often realize is that there is no real that can attempt to be spoken of. Because in attempting to speak of it means we have a good idea of what it might be, albeit with some holes that we are OK with because we somehow know and have named the holes.

John Caputo offers one word that throws the death blow at what he calls “the real monster” of metaphysics. He goes on further to say “the monstrous assumption that everything must be something and we must know what that is.” He calls this “the end of event.”

So, his offering? “I hold my ground on the groundless ground of ‘perhaps’ in order to stay alive to the chance of event.”

‘Perhaps’ is the haunting and weak force that spooks metaphysics. It says to metaphysics, ‘You are parading like you know everything, but all you are is an alpha with a bit of false and illusionary humility. The real you speak of, the real you think you can’t get at, isn’t the real.’ What ‘perhaps’ is after is the hyper-real and that the only way to engage this is to utter ‘perhaps.’ Caputo says, “‘Perhaps’ is the only way to say yes to the future.” and it is so because it allows “desiring something beyond desire.” Here the “desire” would be metaphysics and “beyond desire” would be what is beyond metaphysics, which can only be prepared for by saying ‘perhaps’ as we hope beyond hope to experience event. If metaphysics exists then event does not. And we simply can’t live without event. Well, one can I suppose, but I don’t want to and I don’t think you want to either

Caputo warns that we do not misunderstand him. ‘Perhaps’ is not some way to riddle yourself out of answering an important question. He says, “‘Perhaps is not a simple indecision between presence and absence but an exposure to the promise of what is neither present nor absent.” Essentially, ‘perhaps’ isn’t a shelter from the storm, it is the risk we take when we drive into the storm, knowing that if we stay in our little house it will surely be blown over and we will die. He goes on to say, “‘Perhaps’ is not a simple disinterest but a word of desire for something, I know not what.”

When we speak of our own desire we are told we desire what is beyond us. This is metaphysics. But a la Caputo we desire beyond desire. This is ‘perhaps.’

When we say ‘perhaps’ to the present and future we are laying ourselves bare to the coming of event. To the unspoken and unhinged haunting of l’avenir and all that is to come. We speak and use language knowing what it is as we do so. We don’t allow ourselves to be relegated into theological and philosophical categories that are too small for ‘perhaps.’ We do not acquiesce to someone’s insistence of what is, simply because they think our language fails. That is the point of language. It always fails. Which is why it is best to say little and be open to a lot.

Caputo, and I agree, sees metaphysics as the same old conversation of a “Primal Caller” or not. An elegant, cosmological weaving that we see in part, or nothing at all but relativity and voids that return our echoes. He asks, “Why either cosmos or chaos instead of the unsteady chaosmotic process of unprogrammed becoming…Why do we have to believe that something deep is out there but alas it is lost and life is hopeless search for it?” He concludes, “This is just metaphysics spinning its wheels all over again.”

There is no match for ‘perhaps.’ But there is a match for metaphysics. And when something has a counterpart, when something belongs to a binary system we should be wary. This doesn’t mean we should automatically invalidate it, but it does mean that our questions of it deserve to be asked. If they are answered quickly, and in a way that seems obvious to the locutor it might be an indication that there is more to the story. And the more isn’t metaphysics, but rather post-metaphysics.

My answer to my friend’s question from last week remains the same.

“I have no opinion on capital T Truth and it is of no consequence or importance to me.”

But I am always happy to add,

“I think we are asking the wrong questions. Because any questions on metaphysics that do not lead with ‘perhaps’ in its pseudo-answer simply isn’t for me.”

I hope this little vignette of thought post-metaphysics was helpful for you today. I think that as long as I am writing this series my posts will continue to be vignettes. I think it is a really helpful way of introducing some new thoughts on this stuff and at the same time gives us a lot to chew on each week.

Until next time,

Your Maria

Resources Mentioned:

The Insistence of God: A Theology of Perhaps by John D. Caputo