The late eighteenth century was a time of great change throughout the world. It was the height of the Age of Enlightenment and a "rationalistic religion" (Deism 1) called Deism. Also in this time, The Declaration of Independence was being written by the Congress of the newly claimed United States of America. During the time of the Enlightenment, nearly everything was subjected to a test of reason and nature with the hope of change and progress. With Deism, not even God was safe from at least a few tests of reason. People felt that they "were ready to shrug off the shackles of tradition and custom and participate in the progress of civilization" (Harrison 469). This is exactly what the people of America wished to do as they wrote their Declaration of Independence from a country that allowed little participation in their civilization.

                One of the main principles of the Age of Enlightenment was reason. At that point, many enlightenment thinkers felt that "traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (Harrison 469). In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and others were careful to specify that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" (Jefferson 1).  They felt that if something that has stood for that long is to be changed, it should be done for very good reason. That is why a good amount of the Declaration was spent critically examining the ways of their former King through reason. In these examinations they not only state what had been done wrong, but why it was wrong.

                Nature also played a strong role during the Age of Enlightenment and influenced the Declaration of Independence. In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson mentions the "Powers of the Earth" and the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). He explains that people must put them into use with a "decent respect of the opinions of mankind" (Jefferson 1) when previous political bonds have failed.  People in the time of the Enlightenment felt that "a move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison 469) which were exactly the principles that American wished to base herself upon.

                Another concept strong in this time period was Deism. Deism is defined by the Dictionary of Christianity in America as a "correspondence between the rational structure of the physical universe and the rational capacity of the human mind" (Deism 1). It "focused on the glories of nature" but "assigned God to the outer reaches of the universe" (Deism 1). This form of religion is seen throughout the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson uses the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" to justify the break from Great-Britain and claims that the truths of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" are all "endowed by their Creator" (Jefferson 1). Obviously Jefferson uses religion to justify many of his arguments, but tends to give God less of a role and gives nature a stronger, more evident one.  Like many other people of the age, Jefferson seemed to feel that "God revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Deism 1).

                The main purpose of the Declaration of independence was the Enlightenment principles of change and progress. Jefferson and many other Americans were frustrated with the ways of their former King and his lack of reason. They felt that when a long enough course of abuse was designed for their demise, it was "their right... to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for their future security" (Jefferson 1).  The entire document is a demand for change. A common enlightenment thought that was shared in the Americas was that "Change... liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison) and for them at least, it did liberate and it was very strongly pursued.

                In this time of great change, the eighteenth century, many ideas seemed to fuel and mold each other. Two of the main ideas that greatly influenced the Declaration of Independence were the Age of Enlightenment and Deism.  The religion of Deism and the Enlightenment view of Nature gave many ideas in the justification of the arguments. Jefferson and the other men favored the simplicity in the Laws of nature. Because of this, they also found security in "Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). The writers of the Declaration of Independence also relied strongly on reason. The reason for this Declaration was that they felt the King had no reason. They challenged and examined his ways through reason and created their own, new ways. They were bringing about another basic concept of the Enlightenment, change, so that they could "build for themselves a more perfect society" (Jefferson 1).

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most important thinkers of medieval times is credited today for discovering many important landmarks on the pathway of reason and revelation. Though now a very prominent theologian, he was once a very controversial man. He was opposed and shunned by his own people during his short life. They even went so far as to ban his writing from several theological centers where he is now praised as a prominent catholic theologian. The reason for this opposition was his heavy reliance on the early pagan philosopher Aristotle. His reliance in the most basic form is evident in Ch VII of Summa Contra Gentiles. Here he applies not only Aristotle's first basic principle of truth but the first condition of truth as well to his statement that "the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith."

To understand their relationship with Aquinas' chapter, one must first understand Aristotle's two basic concepts. The principle of truth merely states that humans have the ability to understand truth. Though it seems remedial, it is crucial to nearly any conversation especially one that covers understanding.  For if one cannot comprehend truth, how can truth even be discussed? Another important concept is the principle of non-contradiction. This states that "opposite assertions are not true at the same time" (Ross 543). According to Aristotle these principles are two concepts that cannot be proved, but must be accepted in order to discuss truth and reason.

Seeing how it is the most crucial according to Aristotle, the first principle will be discussed first. In Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas writes about the bond and harmony between the supernatural realm and the earthy realm. He begins this argument by stating that "things which are implanted in reason by nature are most true, so much so that it is impossible to think them to be false. Nor is it lawful to deem false that which is held by faith, since it is so evidently confirmed by God." In this, he means that even though reason and faith are very different, their truths are equally logical and valuable. Also, any knowledge of "naturally known principles" is "instilled into us by God" since he is the creator of nature. Therefore, whatever is known by Divine means carries these same principles. Now there are some things that seem to be beyond the realm of the natural world. Aquinas takes time to deal with this situation as well. He states first that "many things are shown to thee above the understanding of men and things that are of God no man knoweth." Now this may seem to state that humans do not have the ability to comprehend something, thereby crossing the line of the first principle of truth, but Aquinas concludes in saying that humans can know truth because "God hath revealed by His Spirit." Once again, he manages to relate this world to the supernatural.

In this same sense, Aquinas begins to speak of the principle of non-contradiction. Here goes on to say that since God gave both reason and revelation, "it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally." When humans come upon conflicting pieces of information that hinder the advancement of knowledge, it "cannot be ascribed to God." Once again since God has created and given both the ability to reason and the power of revelations, none of the knowledge "received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge" because God "does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge."

As he ends the chapter, Aquinas begins not only to connect reason and revelation, but to prove one with the other. Since truth can be comprehended both in the natural and supernatural sense and the truths from each area do not contradict each other, they begin to prove each other. If there is an argument brought up against faith, it cannot possibly come from the most basic principles of nature for God himself was the one who created nature and the ability to think of said argument. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated since it does not apply to a basic principle. Since it cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be proven and does not have the power to test faith and can easily be explained and tackled. By the end of this chapter, Thomas Aquinas manages not only to prove the harmony between natural knowledge and revelation, but uses one to prove the other and vice versa. The ability of these two elements to both support and defend each other brings them to an even deeper level of unity and harmony.

                She shows this possibility through the diction that she uses.  When the times of today are described, she uses strong, harsh words and phrases like "screaming racket" and "rapacious." Then, when this possibility of total peace is proposed she uses brilliant imagery to describe it. She compares it to wonders of the world like the Grand Canyon and the Pyramids. She even goes further to say that they are not the only eternally beautiful things, for "we are the miraculous, the true wonders of the world."

Though she never directly says it, she seems to prove this point through many ways of knowing. In one of her last paragraphs, she writes about the paradox of humanity and how on one hand we "strike with such abandon" and on the other "touch with such healing, irresistible healing." This implies that within every human, there is a universal sensitivity to others. Also, when the chaos is described nothing seems to fit, so life itself doesn't correspond or cohere to all of its matters. But when she speaks of the life after all of this, everything flows into everything else. This new life coheres and corresponds to that basic longing for peace and our sensitivity. In the lines "We, this people...have the power to fashion for this earth a climate where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety" she proves her idea again through a constructivist theory. Only by our own doing, by society as a whole, can this peace be attained. It is determined and planned by the people.

                I strongly agree with Angelou's statement of this truth for all of the reasons that she gave. The only part where I disagree is that I don't think we can ever reach this by our own means. We, as humans, are too greedy and petty to attain this by our own means. I do agree though that whenever the time comes for this peace, it will be the most beautiful wonder of the world, for there is no greater beauty than that of total serenity and peace. 

Jessie Patterson

Directed Writing #2

                With the growing use of information technology, and the transformation in the functionality and range of knowledge, the world today is often being defined as a 'postmodern' one.  But what exactly does that mean? The term 'postmodern' is a very difficult one to explain because it covers so many, but so few things all at once.  Though it started mostly in art and architecture, it now ranges anywhere from there to sociology or technology. This is not to say that it covers everything within each subject, but more so that is covers a way to look at and understand these subjects.

One important factor of postmodernism is the importance of mini-narratives vs. meta-narratives.  A theorist named François Lyotard defined these meta-narratives as stories which a culture tells to explain its practices and beliefs.  He argues that all aspects of modern society, including science, depend on these meta-narratives for stability and happiness (Klages 3). Postmodernism, on the other hand, rejects these grand narratives and favors the more personal mini-narrative. Mini-narratives are always "situational, provisional, contingent and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason or stability" (Klages 3). In doing this, they show a voice that meta-narratives leave out, the voice of the marginalized. These mini-narratives make understanding elements like art, sociology and technology much more understandable yet complicated at the same time.

In postmodernism thought, language is transparent. Words are mere representations of ideas. They serve no purpose of their own. Their only function is to represent the ideas that are being put forth.  All thought and ideas are "conditioned by our 'horizons,' and these horizons are relative to our particular sociocultural histories;  there can be no universal, neutral, 'objective' knowledge, but only 'stories' about the world told form within particular commitments" (Clark 73). If one were to follow this process of thinking, these words, this sentence and this essay itself all serve no logical purpose.

Stating that something has a logical purpose infers that there is a principal that is logical in every sense. What exactly gives something a logical purpose? Who decides what is logical? Authority can no longer decide what the 'true' way of thinking is. In a postmodern world, 'logic' is determined by the individual. Definitions will vary based on each person's own memories, experiences and upbringing. Therefore what is 'logical' will be different to every person. Every reader will interpret these words differently based on their own opinion. So if logic is different to every person, who decides what is the "true" logic? According to Aristotle, truth is "to say of what is that it is, and what is not that it is not" (Clark 96) This perspective assumes two things; there is a "truth bearer" and a "truth maker" (Clark 96). Now, this all seems completely logical, but in postmodernism, none of this matters. Since the mind of the truth bearer and maker are different, they will never look at any 'truth' the same way.  Since all logic is based upon and very personal to each individual, no logic is above any other.  In that same sense, no single person's 'truth' is more valid than any other's. If all of this is true, then there is no 'universal truth.' All logic is relative to each person, so it is leveled that way and again because every person is on the same level. The choices that we are given when determining our logic make all logic even on in the grand scheme of it all.

        Since what is logical depends on the consumer, everything is logical to at least one person.  If everything is 'logical' to at least one person, then there is nothing that is 'illogical' to absolutely everyone. This again puts everything on the same plane of logic.  If nothing is 'illogical,' what should be used to compare these 'logical' things to? Making everything logical in a sense makes nothing logical because it can't be logical relative to anything.

This brings up the problem of the legitimatation crisis which states that "if we cannot appeal to universal rationality to justify or legitimate our account then how can there be agreement?" (Clark 74). Though postmodernism does many great things like bringing up the voices of the marginalized, and skepticism toward the truth, these things are good only in proportion.  Too much of an attempt to level the voices of all people makes it so there is no longer any medium for people to agree. Too much skepticism confuses the mind about truth and life itself. While postmodernism is very helpful, one must remember that too much of anything is a bad thing. Like every other aspect of life, postmodernism must be put into effect and followed in moderation.

Works Cited

Clark, Kelly and Richard Links and James K.A. Smith. 10 Key Terms in Philosophy and their importance for theology. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Klages, Mary. Postmodernism: A Guide for the Perplexed.  Continuum press. January 2007.                                                                        <http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html>

 A young girl is laying in a field, drifting in and out of consciousness, watching the clouds and taking in the cool spring breeze. The sweet air blows through her long hair. The fresh, crisp smell of the flowers surrounds her.   As she lays she has brief nightmares, but opens her eyes reminds herself that it is all a dream. From the other side of the hill a young man walks up next to her. They seem to know each other well. Without an exchange of words, he lies next to her and they share in the beauty of the moment. They lay together in the bright sun and the tall grasses for hours it seems. Both seem to be completely happy and content in that moment. The clock tower to a nearby city, their city, rings. In alarm, they both spring up and run back home. The bell means that there is coming war. They run as fast as they can, sprinting up and down the hills. When they reach their city, all the doors are locked, not a sole is to be found and no one is answering their calls. The bell continues to ring and reminds them of their pressing duty to find shelter. Ding! Panicking, they rush to search every door. Ding! They can now hear the war cries and drum beats of the coming army. Ding! Even their own homes will not answer to let them in.  Ding! The young girl screams in frustration and crumbles in his arms. Ding! They must find shelter soon or there will be no hope.

                Ever since childhood, the concept of staring into the sun has been a dangerous one. If a child were to stare too long, he/she would lose their sight. In N.T. Wright's book Simply Christian, one written for people new to, or curious about Christianity, he introduces the age-old concept as a way of gaining sight, not losing it. Wright uses the concept as a metaphor to explain a new way of studying theology. In this he means that "It's easier, actually, to look away from the sun itself and to enjoy the fact that, once it's well and truly risen, you can see everything else clear" (Wright 56). This explanation for exploring theology can be both a helpful and a hurtful way to go about searching.

                As Wright begins to explain his approach to theology even deeper, he provides the reader with three similar scenarios. First he connects it to an earlier section of the book, Echoes of a Voice. He says that none of these echoes "by itself points directly to God" (Wright 55). Searching for God with just these means is much like being stuck in a dark cave, blindly searching for some kind of direction. The second scenario involves looking for the center of a maze. While the path chosen may "appear to lead to the center of a maze" Wright states, it too often will "leave us tantalizingly short, separated from the center by a thick hedge" (55).  This scenario is very troubling to many readers. In it he openly states that he doesn't believe that any path can "lead the unattained human mind all the way from reflective Atheism to Christian faith" (Wright 55). This statement alone would seem to deter most of the intended audience. For if one cannot change their religious beliefs through Wright's approach to theology what is the point?

                The next scenario that Wright mentions is much more optimistic and seems to answer some of the questions of the first two scenarios. In this one, he talks about a cabin in the countryside that has lost power in the middle of the night. In that situation, he describes someone as they are "Striking one match after another, you find your way to the pantry shelf that holds an assortment of candles. The candle light keeps you going while you hunt around for a flashlight." (Wright 56) Each step in this process represents the steps toward studying God. When someone first starts out, the glimpses of God and His worth are in short bursts. Eventually, those bursts become a more constant source of knowledge, but still remain very delicate.  Longer down the line, that delicate 'flame' becomes a more reliable and trustworthy source like the flashlight is. This scenario makes much more sense to a person attempting to study God. It is gradual and honest about the irregularity of insight, but still provides hope. Wright is very cautious though when providing this option.  In obtaining insight on God, Wright warns that it makes no sense to "go out with either matches, candles or flashlight to see if the sun has risen yet" (56). Wright makes a point to be very specific in the approach and extent that people go to seek God.

                One of the main approaches Wright mentions is that in studying God, one cannot physically study God.  Wright notices that too often, those who are attempting to study theology "make the mistake of speaking and thinking as though God might be a being, an entity, within our world" (Wright 56). What Wright means by this is that God, himself, is not even an entity in our world therefore, as humans, we cannot study him directly.  This is very helpful in studying theology because it cuts right to the point that it isn't humanly possible to fully know all of the intricate workings of God. Therefore, when studying God through this perspective, no time is wasted trying to fully understand and comprehend Him and His wonders.

                This point made by Wright can also be harmful to a person with little religious experience and knowledge like much of the intended audience is. If a person is starting off with little-to-no knowledge about God, it would be difficult to continue studying, knowing that they "shall never reach that center by our own means" (Wright 58). While this part of Wright's approach is helpful to those with a base knowledge of Christianity, it is counterproductive to those who do not.

                Another point of this approach is that once you being to understand, it "illuminates not only the question about Jesus but everything else as well" (Wright 58). This aspect correlates with the end of Wright's metaphor stating that "once it's well and truly risen, you can see everything else clear" (56). What Wright means is that, when you begin to learn about God and his works, everything else in life will become clearer. This idea is comforting and encouraging not only to those just learning about Christianity, but also those who have been in the faith for years and yearn to learn more.

                While some points of the metaphor "staring into the sun" can be very confusing and often discouraging to many, there are also parts that are powerfully encouraging. If focus is put onto Wright's third scenario involving the process of matches to candles to a flashlight, the idea of "staring into the sun" is put into perspective. The insight and explanation that Wright provides outweighs any doubt that is produced in a reader's mind. Even if unanswered questions are left, they, in themselves, encourage readers to search deeper into theology to find the answer. For as Wright stated earlier, knowledge of God provides insight not only into Him but "everything else as well" (58).

Works Cited

Wright, Nicholas. Simply Christian. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.

Hi Everyone!

What a better way to start out then by going backwards, right? I'm from Prior Lake, Minnesota (right by Burnsville). I've lived there for about 5 years. Before that I was stuck in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for 3 years. I started everything off in Westerville, Ohio (right by Columbus). And, yes, I'm a Buckeye :)

I have a brother who's 21, his name is Tyler. His girlfriend's name is Brandy and she's also 21. They both go to Eau Claire. Then of course there's my Mom and Dad, Bill and Gwen. Even though they're not technically family, there's the Grams and they might as well be blood by now. Once I figure all this movable type stuff out and am on my own computer I'll put up a picture of everybody.... It's a lot less confusing that way.

In my free time I like to say that I make jewlery, but in reality I mostly just hangout with my boyfriend, Austin, and all of his friends who have so kindly adopted me. I like going to shows, playing a good game of frisbee or football, or just goofing around. Austin and I have been dating for about a year and a half, did I mention that he's 6'7" and I'm 5'? haha, opposites attract I guess :) 

In about a week I'm going on my first mission trip EVER! It's in Mazetlan, Mexico and I'll be there from June 26th-July 3rd. I'm both terrified and exstatic at the same time. I'm sure it will all work out fine though.

Wow, I just realized how long this was... For those who don't care to read all of that here's the Highlights

• I love my family, both blood and adopted
• I don't have much of a life outside of my boyfriend (pathetic, I know)
• Mission trip coming up Me= huge spectrum of emotions 

Really, It's pretty tricky to really know someone just though writing, so I'm SO EXCITED to meet you all here pretty soon!

-Jessie