Realism, Pragmatism, Positivism - are you confused yet?

At the suggestion of one of my professors, I have just read the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Realism, Pragmatism and Positivism (actually Logical Positivism). Considering I am working with the ideas and writings of Lindbeck and McClendon who are both influenced by Wittgenstein it makes sense for me to read up on these entries. I'm going to see if I can summarize the concepts briefly for my own edification. Maybe for yours as well?

Realism - Realism has an arch nemesis - Antirealism. Realism stands for that which we can see, the truth that is independent of us. Realism will fight for the belief that truth corresponds with facts and that our knowledge is based upon things that are outside and beyond us. Realism is trying to rescue the idea of truth, justice and the American Way, because they must be objectively out there to be rescued. Yet, lurking in the shadows is the arch nemesis Anti realism. If you tell a joke that you know is funny, beyond the shadow of a doubt and no one else laughs, that is antirealism at work. There is no such thing as objective humor, only the agreed upon ideas at that moment - it is subjective. Antirealism has captured the damsels of truth, justice and the American way and have replaced them with a truth, a justice, and an American way, depending on the individual or the community. Antirealism is constantly working to sabotage ideas of verification and universal values.
Ah, but here is the question - which one is the villain? Antirealism would argue that we are freed from the tyranny of modernism claiming for universals. The dasmal of truth, justice and the American way have been freed from the oppressive grips of realism. Yet Realism would say that we must have some norms and foundations upon which we can stand. The damsels must be freed. Which one is the villain and which one is the hero?

Pragmatism and Logical Positivism - Watch with me the soap opera of the day. Watch with me as a young, handsome doctor enters into a hospital room where a pretty young woman is just waking up after a car accident. The two do not know each other yet, but you can sense the sparks emerging. As the doctor looks over her chart and tells her about her medical options the young woman starts to cry (note, isn't it amazing that the woman, in the hospital, has well groomed hair, is made up and presentable... just like real life?). The doctor, stops and asks what is wrong. The young woman then begins to blubber and gush like old faithful a plot synopsis of the past three weeks of the soap. This person is the father of this person who is sleeping with another person and on and on, and now she ruined her car and everything is crashing down around her. At this point the doctor looks her in the eyes, the music swells, we get a closeup of his face and he says, "I'm going to do everything I can to help you with all of your troubles."
Now, turn off the tv and ask a question. Is the doctor a good person, or is the doctor participating in a good act? If we were logical positivists we would say that we can observe the speech of the doctor, we can deem that this speech is good, and thus the doctor is a good person. Kinda like realism, but focused not on the dashing good looks of the doctor, but on the speech-act of the doctor. Ah but the pragmatists steps in and says we know nothing about the doctor except that he did a good act. All we can look at is the act which is good. It is one that is expected in our society and the doctor nicely fell into it. Is the doctor good? We don't know and do not need to know all we can judge is the speech act.
In other words, positivists would claim that we can judge the doctor based upon the actions of the doctor. Pragmatists claim that we can judge the actions only and can say nothing about the person.

Put all of these clever narrative tricks aside for a moment and ask, what has this to do with theology? What is real or universal? What is good? Is it subjective, can we say for sure or can we only judge the context or the action?

With all of this said, I cannot say for sure that I have all of these concepts right. I may very well be missing a nuance here or there and welcome corrections and suggestions.

Are you confused yet?

Why Christians should listen to Zappa

This is not an election related posting! I'm sitting in my favorite coffee shop, working on my dissertation, and realizing...

all the music is by Frank Zappa

This got me thinking. I am a fan of Zappa. I think is music is clever at times and brilliant at other times. His lyrics are a bit lewd (but then again, so is this blog), but musically he is doing things that are just ...... awesome. Zappa pushes the boundaries, he takes an older style and manipulates it in a way that reveals the beauty of that older style. He mixes style together to create something new and wonderful. From a-tonal music to do-wop to rock to fusion to jazz and on and on, Zappa is constantly pushing and demanding music.

Isn't this how we (Christians) should be with the church? Shouldn't we always be pushing the status quo? Shouldn't we take chances, reach back to forms and ideas of old, and use them today in a way that is new and fresh? Shouldn't we look for that synthesis of ideas and styles that brings out a way of worshipping and being a Christian that is empowering. Shouldn't we expect the most from ourselves and others just as Zappa expected the most out of his musicians. Finally, shouldn't we make sure we never take ourselves to seriously? We can have a high quality of absurdity, and it will remain absurd.

Christians should listen to Zappa, this modern day prophet, and learn from his approach and attitude to life. Just as Zappa pushed music we can push the community, the church.

afterthought: there are other musicians who fall in a similar category, for example, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Ives, Beethoven to name a few