Robert David Hunter Floyd and Dr. Kelly D. Patterson, Political Science

This two-year project, undertaken with the aid of ORCA funding, is preceding both on schedule and in many ways better than expected. The support provided in the grant has allowed me to dedicate considerable time and energy to a topic which requires me to draw upon philosophical insights from a variety of disciplines and authors. While an honors thesis will ultimately result from the work begun with the grant, already this research experience is opening new horizons of scholarship which I had not heretofore considered.

The most significant result of my work thus far has been achieving the beginnings of a thorough critique of modernism. My overall project attempts a defense of the modern concept of natural law from the most sophisticated insights of contemporary philosophy: in this case, the writings of Michel Foucault and the poststructuralist school of thought. Although coming to a knowledge of the totality of 20th-century philosophy is not a task to be accomplished in a brief two-year period, I feel the foundation of a respectable assessment has been laid over the past nine months. In particular, I have learned that understanding the current discourse in any school of thought requires one to appreciate the sources from whence it sprang. In trying to fairly interpret the poststructuralists, my work has brought me back to some of the intellectual forces that created their model for conceiving the world.

In an attempt to get at the roots of some the most common poststructuralist assumptions, my conversations with professors led me to explore the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche to discover the basis of much of contemporary philosophy. By taking a class which exclusively took up Nietzsche’s writings, I was able to carefully read the arguments he makes in favor of what in many ways has become the modern continental philosophical paradigm. In doing so, I concluded Nietzsche’s dismissal of the role of God in ethical and philosophical inquiry is simply assumed. He does not offer any significant reasons for his disbelief in the existence in God. Nevertheless, the conclusions he draws from this assumption are considerable. This insight allows for a powerful critique of Nietzsche which in turn affects the epistemological and ethical programs not only of Nietzsche’s philosophy, but those who follow after him and borrow from his ideas. While the possible consequences this may have for assessing poststructuralism are yet to be worked out, my hope is that this critique may open up enough “space,” to allow a neonatural law paradigm to credibly exist: a possibility that most legal philosophers gave up in the 19th century.

One of the most startling results of this critique, then, is the impossibility it creates for Nietzsche to overcome the nihilism that his radical relativism brings about. To make room for his own views about morality, Nietzsche finds it necessary to first destroy the foundations of modern thinking about ethics. Perhaps Nietzsche’s most unique contribution to moral philosophy is his genealogical diagnostic for morality. His insightful mind sees the source of all Western religious and moral discourse to be a derivation of Western metaphysics. Here he seems to be picking up a thread begun by Schopenhauer in viewing religious and moral thinking as the result of a higher human urge. Taking the basis for human belief in the Deity and in supernaturalism to be a kind of dilution, Nietzsche uses a kind of psychological analysis to unearth the hidden past of Western morality. Thus, to Nietzsche, modern Christian ethics is nothing more than ‘the poor man’s Plato.’ Recognizing that the destruction of Western religious insight creates a vacuum in the Western consciousness, Nietzsche claims that human beings can will meaning and morality into existence. Ultimately, however, my reading of Nietzsche points to contradictions which prevent him from successfully escaping the nihilism he himself fears. This critique of Nietzsche is one of the most fruitful products of this research undertaking.

In addition to completing the class on Nietzsche, my work has also centered around acquiring an understanding of the basic texts and authorities on natural law and relating them to some of the most influential works in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Together with my mentor for this project, Dr. Patterson, I am presently undertaking a directed readings class in the modern natural law theorists. I designed the course content and schedule using the texts purchased with grant funds and submitted the plan of the course to the college for approval. During the summer months before the class began, Dr. Patterson and I read Thomas Kuhn’s famous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Ian Hacking’s The Social Construction of What? These texts allow insight into the current debates about the development of knowledge and how scholars create and synthesize new ideas. Some of the early-morning discussions we had while discussing this literature have yielded some of the best insights of the project.

While the current work has been very rewarding thus far, several challenges have arisen over the last several months which still require resolution. Any work in political philosophy faces the daunting task of somehow approaching the expansiveness and depth of the topic under consideration. Both the various traditions of natural law and the literature of the poststructuralist school are vast. Writing and speaking intelligently about them necessitates reading a very large number of authors. Each author presents the issues most relevant to his or herself and thus places the demand upon the reader to be familiar with the topics under discussion. If nothing else, this project has only served to remind me about how little I know.

As a solution to these problems, I have also added a course through the Department German which teaches the essentials of twentieth century literary criticism. My coursework here will provide an understanding of the basics of decontructionism, structuralism, and poststructuralism, which in turn, enables me to effectively confront Foucault. I am also currently working with Dr. Ralph C. Hancock on refining my understanding on the nature of natural law. As an initial hunch, I feel that the best way to refute poststructuralism lies in the relation between reason and revelation in ethical discourse. While this is only a tentative solution to successfully defending natural law, the solution may prove to have merit in light of my critique of Nietzsche.

On the whole, my ORCA research work has greatly enriched my academic goals at BYU. It has provided an impetus for intense study in any area not traditionally emphasized in undergraduate education in political theory. Although each day I get the impression that there is no way to