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.