Elerick attempts to interpret what it means to be a Christian in light of Lacan’s famous, but asinine, proposition:
“I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think.”
What should be immediately present to everyone who reads the proposition is that it is self-contradictory, for it at once denies the possibility of the individual subject to think itself (or re-present itself to itself) by affirming an inexorable fact about the Self, thereby speaking in absolute and universal terms and negating itself.
In other words, if Lacan is right about the nature of the individual self/ego, then he is simultaneously wrong. And if he is wrong, which he is, then why bother with the man anymore?
David tells us in Psalm 14:1:
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”
While I understand the atheist who latches on to this sort of self-referentially absurd nonsense in an attempt to, as it were, hide himself among the tangled branches of the trees of lit-crit-theory, scientism, postmodernism or any other Enlightenment-Ideal-Driven agenda, I don’t understand how someone who wants to claim to be a Christian can wholeheartedly acquiesce to such silliness.
On a Positive Note
I’m still writing over at blog.carm.org. My last two articles are somewhat connected to this topic. In the first (posted on the 25th of this month), I address The Bogey Man known as “Euthyphro’s Dilemma,” while in the second I sarcastically commend the emergent church movement’s contribution to Reformed theology and apologetics, as well as absolute and universal Truth. The second blog post was very fun to write as it gave me an opportunity to deconstruct deconstruction itself. It is titled “Properly Understanding the Emergent Church Movement” and was posted on the 26th of this month.
I’ll be back on Friday with substantial content…
God bless :)