Akademisk kirke (ytrings og tankefrihed)

Akademia, Diverse, Historie, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on April 26, 2014 at 8:39 pm

Dennis Prager skriver i Front Page Magazine

When Americans over the age of, let us say, 45, look at any of the iconic paintings of America’s Founders — the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the signing of the Constitution, George Washington crossing the Delaware, any of the individual portraits the Founders — what do they see?

They see great men founding a great country.

If you ask recent graduates of almost any American university what they see when they look at these paintings, chances are that they see something entirely different.

They are apt to see rich, white males who are not great and who did not found a great country. And for many, it is worse than that. These men are not only not great; they are morally quite flawed in that they were slaveholders and/or founded a country that allowed slavery. Moreover, they were not only all racists; they were all sexists, who restricted the vote to males. And they were rich men who were primarily concerned with protecting their wealth, which is why they restricted the vote to landowners.

In the past, Americans overwhelmingly saw pictures of greatness. Increasingly only conservatives see pictures of greatness. More and more Americans — that includes the entire left and many universities attendees who were indoctrinated by left-wing professors — now see rich, white, self-interested males.

The left-wing trinity of race, gender and class has prevailed.

Joanna Williams beskriver historien i denne trend i Spiked Online

[S]ince at least the 1960s, various trends in academia – particularly within the humanities and social sciences – have come together to challenge the assumption that truth claims can even be made in relation to knowledge. Theorists associated with the Frankfurt School, such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, emphasised the temporality and context-dependence of truth in knowledge. Meanwhile, the New Left’s pet academic project, cultural studies, argued that knowledge was inescapably relative and determined by cultural conditions.

The new sociologists of education, who came to prominence in the 1970s with the publication of such books as Michael F D Young’s Knowledge and Control, posited that curricular knowledge merely reflected the ideology of the dominant social elite. The educational failure of many working-class children was thus blamed on the fact that their knowledge and experiences were not recognised as legitimate in the existing education system. Feminists of the time, likewise, challenged the very possibility of truth or objectivity in knowledge; key women’s studies textbooks argue that patriarchal assumptions are ‘built into what has been taken to be “knowledge”’. Postmodernism has gone even further, suggesting that all knowledge is merely constructed through discourse.

The argument that curricular knowledge is, to a degree, arbitrary and socially constructed, is well made. However, knowledge takes its objectivity precisely from the social conditions of its production – with new ideas born out of a particular time and place used to test and temper existing truth claims. However, this latter point has been lost today, with many academics assuming that knowledge is reducible to personal experience. Instead of testing the truth of existing knowledge, it’s argued that the notion of truth is itself an outdated concept. Instead, from this perspective, there are only multiple, equally valid truths which are all dependent on the status of the speaker’s social group. As Graham Good puts it in Humanism Betrayed, ‘objectivity and disinterest are dismissed as pretences concealing the motives of power’.

This intellectual relativism is most dominant in arts subjects, where the value of a text is no longer considered on its own terms but rather as a representation of the gender, class and race of the author. To counteract dominant ideologies and promote a concept of academic justice, new authors are included in the curriculum, not because of an objective evaluation of the merits of their work, but on the basis of the particular group they represent.

Den teolo.. ideologiske og teoretiske forvrængning af videnskabens væsen er ganske rigtig og også velbeskrevet. Men de falske værdiers fremmarch sker også som følge af fortrængningen af kristendommen. Det gamle udtryk at det var bedre at sidde på værtshuset og tænke på Gud end at sidde i kirken og tænke på værtshuset forudsætter en aktiv og levende kristendom. Men, som vi har frigjort os selv fra kristendommen er behovet for religion ikke blevet mindre. Vi har brug for værdier, vi har brug for moral, vi har brug for at kunne retfærdiggøre os selv. Disse nye værdier, der dyrkes i en hvilken som helst virksomhed, offentlig som privat og som altså også har fortrængt universiteternes og andre læreanstalters hovedopgave, er ad-hoc værdier. Intet andet en floskler af zeitgeist.

Og det er desværre ikke ikke harmløs velmenenhed, som vi kan se. Som vi er stoppet med at komme i kirken har vi også mistet evnen til at skelne religion fra virke. Nu nøjes vi ikke med at at tænke på Gud når vi sidder på værtshuse, nu indretter vi hele værtshuset i vores indbildte gudsbillede.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress