Post Modernism - In the context of "A Few Good Men"

Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

As Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise tussle throughout the movie, these lines pretty much sums of the movie and its central theme of a man trying to keep the honor and a man desperate to seek truth. I have seen friends become foes fighting to prove their favorite character's justification..to keep their own 'honor' [:P. Nevertheless, it throws upon the concept of post-modernism vis a vis modernism. The way we see things , the way we seek truth.

Modernism has its roots in the Renaissance period when man treaded the path of observation, applying logic, rationality as means to uncover the truth. This is what we call scientific technique. In its heart was a mere orientation of separating the truth from the falsehood. Hence as one of its facet, it never actually differed from its earlier period for the simple fact there was a positive line between what you "believe" to what you "do not believe". Only the method changed. However may be the development of one theory replacing the older one its approach was still the same. Either you love it or you hate it.

A post-modernist's answer to the the simple question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty would be "both hold true".
You would scratch your head and ask again. The answer would be the same.

So coming back to the movie who would you support?? Is it the ever-persisting Kafee who makes his point that Col. Jessep was insanely wrong and committed a grievous crime by ordering the killing of an "innocent" and then putting the lives of 2 more in stake. Or may be Col. Jessep's justification was apt and proper as the situation commanded. Both acted for a particular situation in their own ways because their bent was different. Though the ending was practical, you will have a great trouble in finding who was correct and who was incorrect.. who was the hero and who was the villain. Its all gray, no black and white. God's incarnation or is it the devil's advocate.

After all, the man's actions are entirely dependent on the situation , his motives are shaped by his principles. A tree never had life pre 20th century. The sun revolved around earth pre-Renaissance. Hence today the truth may be something which holds true as long as the environmental factors last, as long as a particular time line lasts, as long as it is seen from a perspective..from a motif.

Hence the The Story of MY experiments with the truth.