Theory on NOW

Enlightenment came along, hugely informing the American revolutionaries as well as those across the pond (where the philosophical change originated). It disenchanted the cosmos and put reason at the top. Descartes, with I think therefore I am, disembodied us putting brain over body. Jefferson built the first university (UVA) with a debate hall at the center instead of the chapel (all European universities had the chapel as its center, as did Harvard, Yale and other American Universities if I remember right from the tour). 

This brought about a way to engage with the world and each other built on reasoned debate and neutrality. With it came scientific revolutions, industrial revolutions, the death of the monarchy, etc. With it also came colonialism.

These paradigms or epochs of thought shift more slowly than they seem and unless they truly explain the world in a thorough way, they are open to replacement. There were significant gaps in the Enlightenment understanding, despite all its benefits. In the last hundred plus years, postmodern thinkers have been attacking it at all angles. 

Postmodernism has successfully destroyed significant portions of the Enlightenment paradigm. But as post suggests, they have not put forth a new working paradigm. 

A further separate point is that religion, Christianity in particular, was pushed out with the Enlightenment paradigm (I am about a third through Charles Taylor’s enormous A Secular Age, so more on this eventually). Of course, the deism of Jefferson was available to these new citizens of reason, but this is fundamentally opposed to the Christian message of God incarnate, suffering, and then further active involvement. 

(Separately, I need to spend a post on how the Christianity that survived and thrived in Enlightenment was a corrupted form. Willie James Jennings in Christian Imagination explains this using the term of inverted hospitality as a perversion of the gospel.)

So some of the forms of Christianity which kept seeking expression and power (all living things, even institution, need something like power to survive and grow) found and kept corrupting bedfellows. But on to the theory.

Postmodernism, by destroying (almost, mostly, in large part?) our paradigm opened the field to all the old ways - from populism more akin to nordic myths, to Christian nationalism, to hyper atomism where the only ethical question is consent, and on and on. Of course some of these worldviews have better organizing principles than others. Specifically, when religion is involved there is a shared text and so a shared language not possible in something like hyper atomism. A Stone of Hope by David L. Chappell argues persuasively that it was this shared language helped quickly mobilize the early civil rights movement so effectively. 

So it is inevitable that some of these old ways would loom larger and more powerful rapidly. 

Thats all I have time for today, comment if you like or tell me your theory.

Poll for you:

1. should we hashtag bring back the enlightenment? 
2. Can postmodernism become a paradigm? 
3. Whats your favorite paradigm?