[February 1999 journal entry]
Re ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, ‘post-modern’ paradigms -- (1) I am convinced that human beings are naturally/instinctively oriented toward building on observation and on empirical thinking when attempting to interpret life experiences. Therefore, ‘modern’ as a historical phase/period did not introduce for the first time a ‘from below’ method. This period represents an attempt (1a) to shift weight (and responsibility) to this ‘from below’ method, (1b) to be disciplined and rigorous in this ‘from below’ method, (1c) to achieve the intellectual freedom necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1d) to promote the egalitarian disposition necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1e) to make possible the education necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed. (2) To be ‘post-modern’ is necessarily to have been and, in an essential sense, to still be ‘modern’. (3) I am not deterred by the common objection/criticism that ‘modern’ leads to no longer ‘needing God’ when ‘need’ in this objection/criticism reflects a childish self-image rather than an adult self-image. Instead, the ‘non-religious’ approach I am following is radically (i.e., to the root) separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s language and thinking re ‘needing God’ in a childish manner. (4) I do not agree with those theologians who, based on the current ‘post-modern’ enthusiasm, feel free to walk away from and ignore ‘modern’ scholarship/questions/discussions.
Re ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’, ‘post-modern’ paradigms -- (1) I am convinced that human beings are naturally/instinctively oriented toward building on observation and on empirical thinking when attempting to interpret life experiences. Therefore, ‘modern’ as a historical phase/period did not introduce for the first time a ‘from below’ method. This period represents an attempt (1a) to shift weight (and responsibility) to this ‘from below’ method, (1b) to be disciplined and rigorous in this ‘from below’ method, (1c) to achieve the intellectual freedom necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1d) to promote the egalitarian disposition necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed, (1e) to make possible the education necessary for this ‘from below’ method to be followed. (2) To be ‘post-modern’ is necessarily to have been and, in an essential sense, to still be ‘modern’. (3) I am not deterred by the common objection/criticism that ‘modern’ leads to no longer ‘needing God’ when ‘need’ in this objection/criticism reflects a childish self-image rather than an adult self-image. Instead, the ‘non-religious’ approach I am following is radically (i.e., to the root) separate from the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm’s language and thinking re ‘needing God’ in a childish manner. (4) I do not agree with those theologians who, based on the current ‘post-modern’ enthusiasm, feel free to walk away from and ignore ‘modern’ scholarship/questions/discussions.