Please go to Puritanism and work your way backwards.

Post-Modernism

Pictured above: A pipe.

Ah. Post-modernism. My least favorite -ism. Why, you may ask? Because it makes no sense. I don't mean it doesn't make sense like modernism made no sense. No, modernism had the foresight to just be vague and artsy. Post-modernism is like that, but pretentious. They think that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist. In fact, truth was subjective, and so different to every person. Well here's an absolute truth for you: That's stupid.

That's a picture of Miss Piggy in a wedding dress. It will always be Miss Piggy in a wedding dress. I just disproved post-modernism for you. Your'e welcome.

I do have to give the post modernists credit for one thing: they weren't as dark as some of the other -isms. They thought that if we were all going to die, we might as well have fun while we're doing it. Normally I'd support that, if their idea of fun wasn't so awful. For, you see, they believed that the lines between high art and low are don't exist. So for them, Veggie Tales and the Sistine Chapel are on the same level.

That's such an insult to Veggie Tales.

In addition, they didn't believe in the linear progression of time. The past, present, and future were all intertwined. You could never know just where in a story you were. Well, newsflash guys: We have calendars and watches. You can accurately measure time. Just calm down guys. Post-modernists were full of crazy ideas like that, And I think we may still be in the post-modern era. I can't tell. Post-modernists can't tell where something begins or ends, so apparently they just don't know when to stop.

2 stars, because they loved music, so points for that.

Existentialism

Romanticism, but somehow less happy.

World War One sucked. In addition to killing 16-20 million young men, the ones who survived were very bitter and ended up giving us existentialism. Maybe the war should've done its job better and gotten those soldiers instead. Because I know I badmouthed romanticism, but existentialism makes romanticism look like silky anteaters.

You're welcome for telling you about these.

They believed that every one of us, as an individual, is responsible for what we do and for who we are and how we deal with the world and how the world is. Okay, that seems fair enough. We decide who we are as human beings, because there are no absolute traits that define us as human beings. Okay, still going good. But then they tell you that because your actions are the only ones that you can control, everything that happens to you is directly your fault. Okay...what? 

This is more or less how existentialists view the world.

Weren't these the same people that were pissed off at being shipped overseas to die in a war? Were they pinning the blame for that on themselves? Because one of their tenants was that everybody is responsible for themselves as an individual, and so I'm just supposed to assume that everyone's a jerk to me because of stuff I did? That's not fair.

They did have some liberating ideas about deciding who you are in the future for yourself. They believed that you should have an image of who you want to be in the future, and you should spend your life striving to meet that goal and become that person, because you could die any day now.

Imagine Ernest Hemingway reading the secret and making a vision board,

But this knowledge is risky, because if you could die any day now, what's to stop you from living it up and robbing a bank? Well, they did say that people needed to have restraint. Because people have limitless potential, they have limitless freedom to do as they want. There's a lot of responsibility that comes with that power. It's impossible to have the power without the responsibility, because to deny one is to deny the other. This is why there was the "code hero," an individual who acted with endurance and precision under even the most dire of pressure, despite the knowledge that one day a loss is inevitable.

He gets it.

That's why I can't hate existentialism. Though it has its flaws, at its core it is a solid idea. It believes that existence precedes essence, and I think that's a good metaphor for its existence. It exists, and so it's created a great sort of atmosphere to thrive in. You just can't think too hard about it.

3 stars, because I get to choose whatever I want.

Honorable mention: Modernism

What?

Normally, I'd explain modernism here. But I can't. I just physically can't. You can't describe modernism. Nobody can. Really, the only consistent thing about it is that it exists, and even that is up for debate. It's a writing style, a philosophy, an art style, and probably fifty other things ranging from dish soap to flowers.

This picture probably explains more than I could.

Naturalism

This is why people hate science.

Naturalists studied human nature. Not because they wanted to, mind you, but because actual nature didn't really care about people, so the naturalists took it upon themselves to study the nature of humans to create a broad statement that would apply to every person in existence. How generous of them. They came up with what's called determinism. Determinism works by having the genetics of a person at birth not just dictate for height and eye color, but for literally everything the person will ever do ever. How they live, who they like, what they do. All genetics.

She tried to tell us.

People I actually respect were part of this movement, and that kills me. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution supports the idea that the behaviors that we exhibit as individuals are in some part due to ages of genetic modification. Karl Marx argued that the social hierarchy determined how we would all live and act. And Sigmund Freud conducted behavioral studies that determined that things that happen to us when we're very young can have a great impact on us in the future. Basically, we had no control over our lives, everything was decided by a random set of factors. We were just rag dolls, tossed about in the winds of fate.

We're no better off than Raggedy Ann.

Naturalism arose reflective of the struggle to survive. Times were somewhat dark for Americans (what with the Great Depression and whatnot), and so people wanted gritty literature to match. And match it did. Naturalist stories often talk about awful people and end badly for everyone involved. This is because characters are portrayed as "realistically," so naturally they're all self serving jerks. But then, at the same time, there was nothing tragic about naturalist stories, because the things that happened in them were doomed to happen from the start. So getting upset over them would be illogical. Naturalists are bitches.

Oops, sorry, heredity.

I give them one star, because genetics told me to.

Realism

For something simple, it's really complicated.

You'd think that I'd like realism. And you'd be right, to an extent. While all of the -isms up to this point had been concerned with emotion, with nature and the unseen, realism was all about the facts. Fact: Realism turned out to be boring. It was no longer about the potential that humans held, it was about the things that they had done. Which, okay, I can get behind that, take an objective look at our past to help us truly understand our present, okay. It was very cause and effect oriented, as opposed to abstract ideas and stories. Basically, they took a look at real life people, and examined how they lived.

Over a century later, this idea would go horribly, horribly wrong.

This isn't very interesting to read. Say what you will about romanticism, at least it could keep your attention. When I read something by a realist I feel like I'm reading absurdly long exposition to a hopefully more interesting story. For all that I dislike the realists, I have to admire their conviction. They believe in showing the way of life as it is, and dammit, they are going to. Even if they have to spend 50 pages describing the exactly how the butter was made. This is somewhat odd, as they also believed in verisimilitude, in which everything is just outright stated. Realist writing is a bunch of short, concise statements that described exactly what was going on in the lives of people who didn't have much going on in their lives. They believed in showing what was called "local color," which showed the culture or lifestyle of the people in a region.

The term "local color" being somewhat ironic in the South.

This is a good way to live your life I guess. Not everyone has to be the hero, or the chosen one, in fact few of us are. The problem is…that isn't very interesting to read. Sure, tropes and cliches are annoying and sometimes cheap, but they're used because they're effective. Elaborate plot twists, deus ex machina, vampires, these are all things that are unrealistic, but are put into stories because authors know we enjoy reading them.

Realism came about in a time of rapid change. Religion was falling out of favor due to science, the industrial revolution was rendering people quickly obsolete, slavery had been abolished, and people were feeling frightened that their way of life was being threatened. I guess having everything written down in simple, easy to read, realistic statements made them feel better. Like they wouldn't be forgotten. And I can respect that. Just keep it the hell away from me.

Three stars, because while it's boring, it's also not damning me to Hell.

Bonus: Anti-Transcendentalism

I couldn't have said it better myself.

While I have to give transcendentalism points for at least trying to seem different from romanticism, I have to give anti-transcendentalism points for keeping it real. It is what it sounds like. The reverse of transcendentalism. And they were real guys. If people were born good, then why were there so many bad things in the world?

Explain this, transcendentalists.

If there was an upside, there had to also be a downside. Transcendentalism just kind of brushed all of the bad happenings in the world under the rug, but anti-transcendentalism isn't gonna let that happen. Anti-transcendentalism is gonna call transcendentalism out on its sh*t. They thought that nature was important too. To them, nature was vast and incomprehensible, but it wasn't all roses. It could be bad too. Just like people.

Let's all take a moment to remember that botflies exist.

5 stars, because they hate transcendentalism too.

Transcendentalism

The original hippies.

When I say that the transcendentalists were the original hippies, that's probably the best description I could give of them. Because they were basically romantics on drugs. They were primarily centered in the New-England area, and they believed that it was possible to transcend the limits of your senses to find the truth. I want you to look me in the eye and tell me that drugs aren't somehow involved in that statement. They thought that people were born with the potential to be great, but along the way the world besmirched them and they were corrupted. How? Like the romantics, they blamed society. To be fair, they approved of progress and technology, just as long as it was necessary. They hated frivolous and unnecessary things, and were very against materialism.

A transcendentalist just threw up.

They did, however, offer a solution to the problem of society. Nature. They believed that nature would act as a sort of panacea, and wipe away all of the sin and corruption. They were staunch supporters of individualism, and were prone to taking off to live in the woods by themselves. They searched for God in nature.

Where's Waldo God?

They also deemed themselves too good for rational thought, and said that people should trust their senses more than anything. Really? They're literally telling us to follow our hearts. Like a Hallmark movie. As if that wasn't sixth grade girl enough of them, they also believed that there was no such thing as evil. There was only the absence of good. While it's true that I am a supporter of the banality of evil, I'm just. Like. Yeah. That's like saying "there's no dark, only the absence of light" or "there's no cold, only the absence of heat." That doesn't mean that evil isn't a thing. That means that evil is characterized by a lack of good. Like, if you looked it up in a dictionary, that's what you'd find. It still exists transcendentalists. Oh, but here's the kicker: The oversoul.

Now available at a library used book sale near you.

They believed that everything, by which I mean everything natural, had a "spark of creation" inside of it. And while that makes for a kick-butt song, it does not make for a coherent life philosophy. They had the best of intentions by coming up with it. They believed that everybody had a spark of the oversoul inside of them, so they were all connected, so they were all evil. Sweetie, if the only way that you can rationalize someone else being equal to you is that a magical force of God is forcing you to be equal, you're probably still a racist.

Honestly, I wasn't even going to talk about Transcendentalism since it just falls under the umbrella of romanticism, but I felt it distinct enough to merit a mention. But they didn't really present any new ideas. The idea of the oversoul is interesting, but not enough to make me transfer over from any other philosophy. Really the only thing they had going for them was their intense fascination with nature and how it made them super introspective. And if you want to go ahead and live in the woods, more power to you. Just don't try and tell me that I suck for not doing it. Honestly, if transcendentalists are so in love with nature, then maybe pollution is on to something.

1 star, but technically it's connected to every other star.

Romanticism

The angsty teen of the -isms

Romanticism is a centuries old philosophy that's inspired countless priceless works of art. If you described romanticism to me, I would not guess that. If you described romanticism to me I would smile at you politely, find some way out of the conversation, and then spend the rest of the day wondering if your parents are already paying for therapy, or if I should call someone. Because really? Are the people who believe this 5? I'm probably not being too fair to romanticism. It doesn't know what it's doing. I can't blame it. It's so innocent. Untouched by the knowledge of how pretentious it is.

The picture of innocence.

Their tenants are strange. They believe in endless optimism and possibilities. Everything was possible through experimentation! Science was the future! Plus foreign lands were amazing! There was, like, so much totally awesome stuff going on over there! It was mysterious, gothic, ancient, bizarre! They were in constant search of beauty, for no other reason than it was pretty! Escapism! Life on the frontiers wasn't that great, but life in your head was amazing! Also nature was sexy. They relied heavily on emotions. It all sounds bright and interesting, right?

Then why does everything about Romanticism make me want to cut myself?

This painting landed me 20 years of therapy.

I think the reason that it sucks so bad can be chalked up on the Romantic's dislike of civilization. They hated civilization. They thought that it was corrupt. Ironic, because they are named Romantics after the Roman Empire. One of the world's largest civilizations that fell, due to corruption. The Romantics were obsessed with the cultures of other people. They loved cultural appropriation. They're those people who invite you over to their house, and then have some weird looking thing on their table, and then when you ask what it was they act all shocked and then go into some long winded explanation about their trip to Uganda last year and how it's a fertility vase and how it's a tradition that dates back thousands of years and then suddenly you're looking at their vacation photos and listening to them talk about how they're planning another trip for the fall and how they should totally move there it would be such an adventure and then you desperately try to change the conversation and then you awkwardly end up talking about a friend's weight loss surgery. They loved the aesthetics and the local color. They didn't really care about much else though, just a fancy backdrop for their fantasies to occur in.

It's a charming place if you ignore all the human rights issues.

But exotic for them back in the day was like, Spain. Mostly European countries and colonies. This is exotic in the way Panda Express is exotic. That means it's not. This is why the Romantics loved the Gothic/Victorian architecture and lifestyle, it was exotic, but it was still European. So it was fancy, but not unfamiliar. But have you ever read a novel about Victorian people? Not a lot happens in those people's lives. How did the romantics make this interesting? Well, they used flowery language. Compare:

The walls were painted blue, but the curtains were yellow.

Where there had once been rolling open fields and plains, humanity had erected unnatural walls to constrain and dampen the human spirit. Insultingly reflective of this fact was the color of the walls. A deep azure, darker than the cornflower that grew in the fields, darker than the tears shed by many a man crushed down by the world, bluer than the ocean in which that man drowns himself. Perhaps in mockery of this fact, the curtains, hanging from the window with the sole purpose of separating the prisoners of society from a view of the wonderful natural world, were amber. Looking upon them, one could feel as if an insect crystalized in tree sap since prehistoric times, a visceral creature of nature bound unnaturally in a prison they could never escape.

Did you catch the subtle difference in language?

Romanticism knows what you're up to, charming interior design.

The first description of the room was prosaic. The second was what you'd write if you needed to fill out the word count on an essay you didn't really care about. This was the trademark of romanticism. Many famous writers, such as Mary Shelly, Edgar Allan Poe, and Victor Hugo, were products of romanticism. Let's see, Mary Shelly invented sci-fi with her book about a man made of the parts of other dead men. Edgar Allan Poe wrote a story about a guy who gets his rival drunk and then walls him up underground alive. Victor Hugo wrote a book about a deformed man who lives in a bell tower. That sounds like one hell of a dinner party. What happened to optimism? Well, optimism is perhaps the wrong word to use. They were optimistic that anything was possible. This manifests itself in the strangest way: through the supernatural. Supernatural elements are frequent visitors of romantic stories. It goes with the territory, which is dark, exotic locales. Who knows what could be lurking out in the dark?

This is fake, by the way.

What could drive this generation of Americans to such crazy ideas? We can chalk this one up to the world junkiest melting-pot. There were a lot of new immigrants coming to the US at the time, thanks to the growth of industrialization. I don't know if you know this, but the industrial era kind of sucked. Especially for poor factory workers, which was pretty much the only position open to these people. They were sad. They were lonely. They were homesick for foreign lands and dreamed of a better future. It's understandable that these depressed and depressing people would give rise to such a sucky school of thought. But today we don't need romanticism, because we already have enough false positivity and mindless drivel in our lives. Romanticism should have died with the Roman empire. Oh wait, romanticism didn't come about until way after the Roman empire fell? Romanticism should've died when the Roman empire did, because then maybe I wouldn't have had to deal with it.

2 stars, because at least they introduced the term "romantic," which is pretty useful.

Deism

Getting it right the second time.

Deism was practiced by many of America's Founding Fathers, and I would argue that it's the most pertinent to today's society. It was a departure from Puritanism (anything is better than Puritanism), that focused on going away from the idea of the elect, and more towards the idea of free will and salvation. They have five tenants, most of which deal with God.

1. There is one supreme God.

2. Humanity's Duty is to revere God.

3. Worship is linked to practical morality.

4. Forgiveness for repentance.

5. Good work is punished 

It's a big step up from the "damned to hell" mentality of puritanism, right?

They believe that their faith is a natural religion. Which, for me at least, is a faux pas. But to be fair, puritanism is all about condemning other people's religions. At least the deists are polite about it. They're actually one of the major forces behind "freedom of religion." Granted, back when they said that, freedom of religion meant praying on Saturday rather than Sunday or getting divorced, but the sentiment is nice. They thought that as long as people were revering God, their method of worship shouldn't matter.

I don't know how they'd respond to this though.

Their relationship to God was also rather interesting. They believe that God created the universe, and then just left it and doesn't do anything. Then why even have a God? Because there was still a Heaven, it just wasn't invitation only. They thought that anyone could gain repentance by living a good life. They didn't believe in the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit), and they didn't believe in miracles either. They thought that Jesus was just a man. They thought that be Bible was just a historical record.

We all remember when this happened, right?

In the end, God couldn't be accessed through organized religion, rituals, personal beliefs, etc. He was a detached figure who created the world, and is now chilling on a beach somewhere up in Heaven. Similarly, prayers were just for thanking God for the things you had, not asking for more things.

You're not getting parents like that Annie.

The best thing that they advocated was the idea that people are inherently good. Puritans, of course, though they'd never publicly admit it, thought that their neighbors were pretty much all going to Hell for doing literally anything. Samantha ate cheese twice in one week? Tsk tsk. James fell down and broke his leg? He probably earned it. Deists thought that people were nice. We had to be in order to cooperate enough to build up the society that we had. They thought that since people were nice, they did good things because of this. This was only natural.

Puritans are calling this woman a b*tch in their heads.

Deism came into being because society in America began to be more developed. Once people weren't fighting to not die of dysentery, they had the time to take a step back, look at their ideologies, and think "What the f*ck were we doing?" When they weren't so reliant on the idea of God to get them through their day, they allowed themselves more personal freedoms, and stopped living like almost literal monks. They allowed themselves to be people. They were reasonable. They were logical. They didn't kill people for being witches. They were accepting of other people. They still believed that a giant man in the sky had created everything, but we can overlook that for the benefits.

4 stars, because they managed to impress me.

Puritanism

The only thing blander than their outfits is their lives

For a school of thought that believes in the existence of a giant man in the sky controlling everything, a creepy man living in the center of the Earth who sends out his magical servants to seduce the well-intentioned people of the world who are trying their best to survive in the harsh wilderness of a new continent, Puritanism is really boring. Probably my least favorite of the -isms. Why? Well,  Because puritanism is bland. If it was a cookie, it would be oatmeal. If you asked it what animal it would be if it could be an animal, it would just respond that people are animals. They're vanilla. And do you wanna know why they're so boring? Well here's their explanation:

When God created everything, he set aside a certain number of people who would be the elect. They were the only ones who went to Heaven. Everyone else went to Hell. The elect are elect from the moment they're born until they die, when they go to Heaven to chill out in the world's most exclusive nightclub. Puritans live a pious life, in order to prove that they're the elect. This means that they forego earthly pleasures, and fervently worship God.

Did anyone follow that logic? There are more holes in it than a game of Mario Golf. First, if the elect are already elect, why do they live a pious life? They're already going to Heaven. And if they aren't, they're already going to Hell. If they knew that they had no choice in the matter, why wouldn't they just spend their short time on Earth in a haze of alcohol and cake? Being nice isn't going to make them elect. Heck, the odds of Mother Teresa going to Heaven under this system are very low. Is Susan B. Anthony in Hell right now? Maybe she'll meet Ghandi while she's down there. They can start a book club.

"I, for one, thought that Jo and Laurie belonged together."

 Also, what's up with this specific amount of elect people? How awesome are these people. God took the time out to look through everyone, ever, and picked out like, 183 people who he thought were awesome? I mean, I guess that if he's gonna spend the rest of eternity with them, he's gonna want to know who they are. But then at the same time, if he already picked out all of the elect people, why wait for them to be born, then die? Why not just put them all in Heaven right now? Are they staggered so they get a new person in there every 100 years or something? Also, is there like some kind of affirmative action plan for Heaven? Are they going to include members of minority groups and women? Because if not, God's looking at one hell of a lawsuit. Is God a racist?

Here's a fun party game: when in a room full of people, drop a crucifix on the floor. When someone rushes to pick it up, you've got yourself a puritan. Sometimes there's more than one, and that's when things get really excited, because what you're about to witness is the most passive aggressive fighting ever. Because both puritans want to be the one to pick the cross up off the floor, but neither wants to seem presumptuous and beat the other one to it. Instead, they'll cordially greet each other. Here's a transcript of a casual conversation between two puritans.

1: Hello fellow puritan, how are you enjoying the party?

2: I am not enjoying it, fellow puritan, because I love nothing greater than my lord and savior Jesus Christ. (At this point they'll probably both draw a cross on themselves out of respect for their Jesus)

1: I see you were about to pick up this crucifix off of the floor.

2: Indeed I was, I noticed this flagrant disrespect for our one and only Father in Heaven (Another cross) and decided to take it upon myself to rectify the situation.

1: How noble of you! However, it would be remiss of me to leave all of the work to you, allow me to lift the burden from your shoulders.

2: Oh, no, I couldn't impose. It would be my pleasure to pick this up off of the floor, but not as much pleasure as I get from worshiping my light and sun Jesus. (Cross)

1: God will surely recognize your offer.

2: God will recognize me picking this crucifix off of the floor.

(At this point there should be a few seconds of intense eye-contact, before 1 backs down)

1: Well, if you want to pick up the crucifix from the floor, by all means I will allow you to do so. Sacrifice is a trait of the elect.

It may not seem like it, but that was a heated fight. They were a second away from tearing each other's bowl cuts out of their heads. Drinks would be thrown.

The Real Housewives of Salem

This is why puritanism sucks.

Take careful note of how many times God or Jesus was mentioned in that discourse. THEY NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT THEIR RELIGION. They gotta bring up God in every conversation. You know. Just in case you forgot how elect they are. They're so elect guys. SO DANG ELECT. Except they won't say that they're elect. They just hint at it. Like they're trying to get you to ask about their new diet or something. Except instead of their diet, they're implying that you're going to Hell and they aren't. For a school of thought so dedicated to being nice, they sure are vicious. There's actually an acronym invented to explain their beliefs.

Total Heredity Depravity: Sins are passed down from father to son, and people are inherently evil. In other words, that time that your dad ran a red light? That's on you, you scum.

Unconditional Election: It's already decided where you'll end up when you die. (Hint: It's probably Hell)

Limited Atonement: Jesus didn't die for the sinners. Which is odd, because then why the hell did he die? Wasn't dying for sinners the whole point.

Irresistible Grace: The elect can't lose their elect status. The Holy Spirit gave it to them directly. So, on the plus side, they get to go to Heaven. On the downside, they never quite get over being molested by a ghost as a child.

Perseverance of the Saints: The elect will persevere to the end. Everybody else just kind of…I don't really know.

Tulips, coincidentally, destroyed the Dutch economy in the 1600s.

If you ask me, I'm pretty sure that Puritanism was only as successful as it was because it became a thing in the early stages of America. People were dumb back then, because they didn't have vaccines or antibiotics or anything like that. Also because the pilgrims, who were the biggest advocates of puritanism, lived in the middle of the woods. Their life sucked. They wanted to feel special, so they invented a big game where they were the elect and they were going to Heaven, but everybody else wasn't because if everybody else was it wouldn't be as special.

I hate puritans, but I'm pretty sure each one of them hates themselves more than I ever could. Why else would they put themselves through such a difficult trial?

1 star,  because 5 stars are for the elect.

The Introduction: American Philosophies

American Philosophies Have Changed Over Time

        That's not necessarily a good thing. Hi, I'm Tai Bercher, and this is my project for my AP English class. I was originally going to do a comic book, then an illustrated field guide, but then I realized I have no artistic talent/determination. And then I was going to write an essay, but then I realized I'm pretty bad at that, and there's no way I could fit what I really felt into MLA. So here we are. What follows on the rest of this blog are a series of reviews on each of the major philosophies that have taken hold of America over time, colloquially referred to here as the -isms. They are extremely opinionated, and just as a warning, I tried to be funny, so proceed with caution. Also there might be swearing in some of them? Whatever, it'll be an adventure for all of you.