First off, this is by no means an attempt to clarify or define post-modern philosophy (because i don't even really know what post-modern philosophy is). The point is that what struck me about the idea is that this is the way that we think now, thus "post-modern". There are no absolute rights and wrongs, just situational rights and wrongs. There doesn't have to be a loser in every situation, two opposing things can be right at the same time. This is interesting because in classical philosophy, the goal was to create a system in which absolute right and wrong could be defined for any situation. To live by a certain philosophy was to have a clearly defined code of how to judge and evaluate actions.



To our modern minds, this seems ridiculous because how can everyone be defined and explained by just one system? Can there truly be only one answer for everything? If anything, it seems like the world is diversifying itself more than ever. Religions are being pulled apart and then fused together to create a personally compatible system of belief. Multi-culturalism is the understanding and respecting of another person's way of living. Don't get me wrong, all of this is tremendously good. If anything, i am entranced with the different ways that people think and feel.



But a reason that i wanted to study philosophy was to find out about the various absolute ways of thinking that have come and gone. One reason i'm attracted to Rand is because she takes such hard stances on all issues. This is right, this is wrong. Period. There is no gray area and no accomodation for a difference of opinion. In a way i've always kind of wanted to find a "code" of living. A list of absolutes to live and die by. Like the knights of old. Or the Marines or something. (Of course, living by the wrong code can result in disastrous atrocities). At the same time i'm very agreeable with the Buddhist idea of each person finding his/her own individual enlightenment.



I think what bugs me about Christianity is that is claims to have absolutes. Or rather, it does have absolutes but each person pulls out a different interpretation of these absolutes in order to suit him/herself. Totally opposing interpretations can be supported by the Bible, another reason it conflicts with me. It seems to me that if the Bible is to be taken as the book of rules and a way of life, it should not be so vague that 2 million different people can come under the umbrella of Christianity yet still be incredibly different. I feel like Christianity is a post-modern philosophy posing as a classical one.