Modernity, Chapter I
My erstwhile colleagues and I have happened upon the idea of hosting a symposium of sorts, concerning the subject of subjects in contemporary society- modernity. As I suspected, it's coming together beautifully. My colleagues have posted topics that reflect their respective interests and fields as is their wont.
First out of the gate was the Grand Inquisitor, who (appropriately enough) posted on the philosophical roots of modernity. Professor Massa also posted a brief on the historical progression of modernity. These gentlemen to-day continued the trend, with Professor Massa's commentary on how modern perceptions skew our understanding of the Holocaust, a subject he has been researching much as of late. The Grand Inquisitor continues along this line with his views on the wrong-headed idea of tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and its implications, along with a Latin title.
Coming up into the pack (much like the proverbial tortoise) is your humble scribe. I've finally been shamed into posting. However, I shall make up for it with a lengthy post on exactly what constitutes "modernity".
As the Grand Inquisitor has noted, modernity is given to nominalism. As definitions are paramount in such a system, I shall endeavour to provide a working framework that our gentle readers might more precisely understand our complaints.
Modernity is a mind-set. As the Grand Inquisitor noted, modernity is obsessed with the mind. By denying that universals (i.e. meanings that are external of the mind that are universally shared) exist, moderns have no basis on which experience might be shared. Hence, moderns can only operate from inflexible mental constructs that they construct. They expect everything to apply to these constructs, and they tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit within these. Hence, we find the root of modern ideological dogmatism.
Of course, one could regard a dogmatic defence of old knowledge and a refusal to examine new learning that is contrary to the pre-established perfect doctrine to be a symptom of a dark age. Those who think so have only to travel a short way to discover my feelings about modernism as an intellectual philosophy.
The only real key they have in interaction with the world is the doctrine of progressivism and the sanctity of trends. This suffices for their faith and moral philosophy. They have faith that, as a significant number of people do something, their growing multitude serves to justify the act and make it presentable to the great multitude of others. This then sets a precedent, and it becomes a trend. Sexual behaviour becomes more permissive, the voting age decreases, and the pernicious influence of centralised government continues its advance across all sectors of life unabated.
The justification for a trend is just that- it's a trend. Arguments in favour of the abolition of the death penalty focus not on whether it is just, or whether it is morally permissible for the state to put criminals to death (it is, by the way), but the "historical trend" towards abolition. My mother once remarked that having all of one's friends jump off a bridge constitutes a trend. The fact that many others do something is in no wise a justification. Sadly, in modern thought it is.
Why is this so? Well, that's enough material for another post, but I'll say democratic egalitarianism and the patent inability of moderns to agree on any reality is the culprit.
So we see two hall-marks of modernity. Sadly, the definition is not complete. Though it's nearly impossible to compile an exhaustive list of the hall-marks of modernity, I will hint that listening to any political wonk will betray the rest of them. I shall continue my labours in a later post, but for now, good-night.
First out of the gate was the Grand Inquisitor, who (appropriately enough) posted on the philosophical roots of modernity. Professor Massa also posted a brief on the historical progression of modernity. These gentlemen to-day continued the trend, with Professor Massa's commentary on how modern perceptions skew our understanding of the Holocaust, a subject he has been researching much as of late. The Grand Inquisitor continues along this line with his views on the wrong-headed idea of tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and its implications, along with a Latin title.
Coming up into the pack (much like the proverbial tortoise) is your humble scribe. I've finally been shamed into posting. However, I shall make up for it with a lengthy post on exactly what constitutes "modernity".
As the Grand Inquisitor has noted, modernity is given to nominalism. As definitions are paramount in such a system, I shall endeavour to provide a working framework that our gentle readers might more precisely understand our complaints.
Modernity is a mind-set. As the Grand Inquisitor noted, modernity is obsessed with the mind. By denying that universals (i.e. meanings that are external of the mind that are universally shared) exist, moderns have no basis on which experience might be shared. Hence, moderns can only operate from inflexible mental constructs that they construct. They expect everything to apply to these constructs, and they tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit within these. Hence, we find the root of modern ideological dogmatism.
Of course, one could regard a dogmatic defence of old knowledge and a refusal to examine new learning that is contrary to the pre-established perfect doctrine to be a symptom of a dark age. Those who think so have only to travel a short way to discover my feelings about modernism as an intellectual philosophy.
The only real key they have in interaction with the world is the doctrine of progressivism and the sanctity of trends. This suffices for their faith and moral philosophy. They have faith that, as a significant number of people do something, their growing multitude serves to justify the act and make it presentable to the great multitude of others. This then sets a precedent, and it becomes a trend. Sexual behaviour becomes more permissive, the voting age decreases, and the pernicious influence of centralised government continues its advance across all sectors of life unabated.
The justification for a trend is just that- it's a trend. Arguments in favour of the abolition of the death penalty focus not on whether it is just, or whether it is morally permissible for the state to put criminals to death (it is, by the way), but the "historical trend" towards abolition. My mother once remarked that having all of one's friends jump off a bridge constitutes a trend. The fact that many others do something is in no wise a justification. Sadly, in modern thought it is.
Why is this so? Well, that's enough material for another post, but I'll say democratic egalitarianism and the patent inability of moderns to agree on any reality is the culprit.
So we see two hall-marks of modernity. Sadly, the definition is not complete. Though it's nearly impossible to compile an exhaustive list of the hall-marks of modernity, I will hint that listening to any political wonk will betray the rest of them. I shall continue my labours in a later post, but for now, good-night.
posted by The Admiral at 11:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home