Modern/Postmodern Writers, Historians, Philosophers, Theologians are Weak Except when they Aren’t .

Because of their Anachronism habits, Modern/Postmodern writers are a weak link in intellectual study; but whenever they are faithful to history it is a thing of Majesty.

Hopefully the title gave a clue as to what I am hinting at. The postmodern and indeed even modern outlook have the disease of anachronism. Which means that they interpret everything by the standards and values of our present moral sheik and are not faithful to history or the idea that people in history had inimitably other-worldly values and value systems to ourselves. In this case we are the outlanders. So what sense does it make to see everything through our space age spectacles when the world of the past is vibrant and colourful through our analog fleshy eyes. That is to say that historical richness can never be appreciated by those who are dogmatists and party faithful in league with postmodern moralizing and virtue signalling. Yes St. Paul was against slavery, but he was not John Brown (understand this reference:  Paul sought to liberate slaves through Christ - John Brown was a murderous revolutionary with bloodlust like a Quentin Tarantino Movie disgusting as they are).

The Optimism of this article should from here-out be emphasized against the disgust that registers above. While moderns (and postmodern) approach everything thinking that they were the only humans with a brain or bipedalism or opposable thumbs, the kernel of truth that is rescued in the process is (or can be) the rigour of the scientific method and process of a highly analytical mind. Something that writers like Carl Jung or Albert Schweitzer posses in spades. A fresh outlook that takes nothing for granted but seeks to establish firmament of scholarly grounds to analyze underlying historical material.