Crises of Modernity

Pantagruel

Just some reflections while finishing up the first volume of Habermas' new work.

If you're like me, you probably spend a lot of time trying to unwrap the meanings of contemporary social lenses like "post-metaphysical" or "post-modern." The meanings become clearer if you grapple with them in the context of the succession of social lenses that preceded them, from enlightenment to romanticism to scientific positivism.

I think modernism is just the idealized culmination of positivism, science triumphant as technology, and so represents the defining period of that phase. Ironically, modernism is that which both reveals the ideal in its most concrete form while at the same time highlighting its most glaring deficits. Leading to the crisis of disillusionment which is post-modernism. H.G. Wells might well be considered a prophet of post-modernism. And he ought well to be considered.

These unfolding phases of social thought represent the growth of awareness of inner-subjective versus outer-objective truths, in dialectical cycles. Our ideals must find expression, if they are to have any true value. But our technology, no matter how advanced, can never instruct us as to what that value is. Only we can confer it. And the post-modern crisis is our acute awareness of having forgotten our connection with the values traditionally safeguarded in traditional institutions, family, community, and religion. The famous state of "anomie" of Emile Durkheim, the decay of meaning brought on by the disconnection of life from value, the malaise of modern man.

Confucianism, for example, sits right at this juncture of the material and the moral. It does not appeal to a god for justification (nor offer salvation). But it does seek to define morality as it can be best actualized in the here and now. In this, it is strongly akin to Stoicism. Values made real.

ssu

If you're like me, you probably spend a lot of time trying to unwrap the meanings of contemporary social lenses like "post-metaphysical" or "post-modern." The meanings become clearer if you grapple with them in the context of the succession of social lenses that preceded them, from enlightenment to romanticism to scientific positivism. — Pantagruel

One should obviously understand modernity in order to understand the criticism of post-modernity. And as you say, "the context of the succession of social lenses that preceded them, from enlightenment to romanticism to scientific positivism".

Unfortunately this rarely happens. People simply study Habernas or Foucault and that's it. Why study those past things that "you should object to".

And then there's the culture war crowd for whom post-modernism is a swearword. So even less intellect there.

Confucianism, for example, sits right at this juncture of the material and the moral. It does not appeal to a god for justification (nor offer salvation). But it does seek to define morality as it can be best actualized in the here and now. In this, it is strongly akin to Stoicism. Values made real. — Pantagruel

So are you hoping for a synthesis after the thesis of modernity and anti-thesis of post-modernity?

Pantagruel

So are you hoping for a synthesis after the thesis of modernity and anti-thesis of post-modernity? — ssu

I think that we are due for a new phase. The moral vacuity of pure technology is not only becoming evident, it is precipitating crises across many domains. The night before I wrote those reflections I dreamt I was searching for Hegel among bookshelves, amidst turmoil.

Look at the kind of anti-leadership that is being spawned. People think they live in a democracy because they hear the word used. Yet everywhere they look is evidence that their most cherished institutions are nothing but toys for plutocrats. Is this truly how people think democracy should work? Privileged selection of candidates and flawed electoral processes, all to subserve corporate interests. Hmmm.

alleybear

People think they live in a democracy because they hear the word used. Yet everywhere they look is evidence that their most cherished institutions are nothing but toys for plutocrats. Is this truly how people think democracy should work? — Pantagruel

In this American political era, whoever has the best story (fiction or non-fiction) wins. Period. Facts, other than who's giving the most money to who, are irrelevant in politics. In 2020, the story of the overbearing rich taking advantage of middle America won. In 2024, the story of overbearing liberal progressives destroying America won.

My ideal Democracy requires educated voters who know basics about the workings of their government, not just figureheads telling people what to think about the workings of their government. Democracy that requires educated voters because whoever is in the majority in a democracy can become a tyrant to whoever is in the minority. Democracy that requires people educated enough to respect others as equal, even those in the political minority, and be able to show true consideration.

My understanding is that even in ancient Greece, everyone didn't vote. Those who were eligible to vote met almost weekly to make laws and foreign policy. Only men 18 years or older could vote, so if you were away in the military or had to tend your farm or do any work that didn't allow you to be in Athens, you didn't participate in their democracy either.

Any grouping of homo sapiens with a governing structure is going to result in a small percentage doing the actual governing and the rest just trying to live their lives. Doesn't matter what you call that small percentage, what matters is under what principles does everyone allow those few to run things.

Pantagruel

↪alleybear

My take is that, per the theme of my original post, the dominant social trend can be understood in terms of a relative alignment with or alienation from a "value-core". So everything you said is undoubtedly true, but it is a description of a problem that has been in a state of evolution since....way back when. Hopefully, the more we can understand the nature of that problem, the better we are able to put our energies into efforts that address it.

I agree that rule has historically been rule by a dominant minority. I believe, however, that evolution is ongoing. We are evolving as a species to a kind of "species being". Not just in the practical-social sense described by Marx, but perhaps in a kind of evolutionary-cognitive sense. Our species has reached a tipping-point, as defined by the scope and scale of our mastery over our environment. Either we continue to evolve into a truly "human" species, a humane species, or we bring about our own extinction, as a mere consequence of having failed to achieve the ethical awareness necessary to adequately manage our own technology.

T Clark

post-modern crisis is our acute awareness of having forgotten our connection with the values traditionally safeguarded in traditional institutions, family, community, and religion. The famous state of "anomie" of Emile Durkheim, the decay of meaning brought on by the disconnection of life from value, the malaise of modern man. — Pantagruel

You can't convince or coerce people into respect and confidence in "traditional institutions, family, community, and religion," although maybe some people are in the process of trying to do that. The changes are metaphysical - they're about how think the world works and should work - about how we know what we know and what our goals should be - about what's right and wrong. I'm not sure there is any way to go back.

We should remember that the good old days were not all that good. Slavery, exploitation, and oppression were ok with full support by traditional institutions, family, community and religion. There were at least as many wars then as there are now, although the ones we have now are more dangerous. People died of diseases that are easily treated. Life expectancy has increased dramatically. Were things better then than they are now? Good question.

Confucianism, for example, sits right at this juncture of the material and the moral. It does not appeal to a god for justification (nor offer salvation). But it does seek to define morality as it can be best actualized in the here and now. In this, it is strongly akin to Stoicism. Values made real. — Pantagruel

I don't know a lot about Confucianism or ancient Chinese history and philosophy, but I do have a strong interest in Taoism, which, as I understand it, was developed in opposition to the rigidity and coercion of Confucianism. Taoism is often likened to Stoicism in that it seeks virtue not in institutions but in nature and will. By the way, I don't know a lot about Stoicism either.

Pantagruel

We should remember that the good old days were not all that good. Slavery, exploitation, and oppression were ok with full support by traditional institutions, family, community and religion. There were at least as many wars then as there are now, although the ones we have now are more dangerous. People died of diseases that are easily treated. Life expectancy has increased dramatically. Were things better then than they are now? Good question. — T Clark

Aha.

People having a connection to an inner core of value is not the same thing as saying that those core values were themselves inherently correct. Obviously, as our experience of the universe deepens, our understanding and appreciation of the nature of core values will also evolve. This is exactly the challenge I think. We are not moving backwards to old values, but forward to new ones. It merely happens that certain institutions historically embodied certain kinds of values. They may again, even if the institutions and the values they align are not precisely the same.

Tom Storm

You can't choose or coerce people into respect and confidence in "traditional institutions, family, community, and religion," although maybe some people are in the process of trying to do that. The changes are metaphysical - they're about how think the world works and should work - about how we know what we know and what our goals should be - about what's right and wrong. I'm not sure there is any way to go back.

We should remember that the good old days were not all that good. Slavery, exploitation, and oppression were ok with full support by traditional institutions, family, community and religion. There were at least as many wars then as there are now, although the ones we have now are more dangerous. People died of diseases that are easily treated. Life expectancy has increased dramatically. Were things better then than they are now? — T Clark

Nicely put. There's very much a cult of 'things used to be better' from almost every quarter (but frequently for different reasons). Some people preferred things when minorities were silent and oppressed. Others think the past had better values and metaphysical frameworks. We are often said to live in a disenchanted era and everyone from Iain McGilchristt, Jordan Peterson to D. Trump are flogging nostalgia projects, seeking some kind of restoration.

Leading to the crisis of disillusionment which is post-modernism. — Pantagruel

Do you hold that post-modernism is a bad thing? Might it not also be a way we can use to think more interestingly outside of our habitual foundationalist posturing and dualistic thinking? Post-modernism is so ubiquitously detested, I can't help but think it must be onto something.

T Clark

People having a connection to an inner core of value is not the same thing as saying that those core values were themselves inherently correct. — Pantagruel

Generally, when I hear people complain about the loss of respect for values, they have their own personal values in mind, e.g. a lack of commitment to traditional Christian morality.

Obviously, as our experience of the universe deepens, our understanding and appreciation of the nature of core values will also evolve. — Pantagruel

I don't see any sign of that happening. Am I being impatient?

T Clark

Nicely put. There's very much a cult of 'things used to be better' from almost every quarter (but frequently for different reasons). Some people preferred things when minorities were silent and oppressed. Others think the past had better values and metaphysical frameworks. We are often said to live in a disenchanted era and everyone from Iain McGilchristt, Jordan Peterson to D. Trump are flogging nostalgia projects, seeking some kind of restoration. — Tom Storm

I don't think it's all that complicated. At bottom, people's values are and have always been the same - family, community, a decent life. I can't remember where I got this. Maybe from here on the forum.

To be happy at home, said Johnson, is the end of all human endeavour. As long as we are thinking only of natural values we must say that the sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him; and that all economics, politics, laws, armies, and institutions, save in so far as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of spirit. — C.S Lewis

Pantagruel

Do you hold that post-modernism is a bad thing? Might it not also be a way we can use to think more interestingly outside of our habitual foundationalist posturing and dualistic thinking? Post-modernism is so ubiquitously detested, I can't help but think it must be onto something. — Tom Storm

I don't think it in itself good or bad - it is just a label that has been applied to a type of reactionary response to a recent phase of psycho-social evolution. That said, I think it highlights a schism in the modern (post-modern) mind and is a symptom of an associated socio-cultural condition, which is one of instability. The idea that mankind has reached some kind of tipping point.

Tom Storm

a type of reactionary response to a recent phase of psycho-social evolution. — Pantagruel

Can you explain what you mean?

the idea that mankind has reached some kind of tipping point. — Pantagruel

Do you mean that the hubris and vainglory of foundationalism have been challenged by a severe form of skepticism?

Tzeentch

To put it quite simply, Western institutions have ran their course, and have now reached the terminal endpoint of any power structure, which is total delusion and corruption, and inevitable collapse.

One glance at the clowns that are running the show in the West tells you all you need to know.

The crisis is one of corrupt leadership, that has, in an effort to cling to its power and delusions, are increasingly painting the citizens of their countries as the problem.

Fortunately, those are the death throes of a dying system, but unfortunately, it may take a couple more years before it finally dies.

Pantagruel

↪Tom Storm

I refer you to my previous observations:

I believe, however, that evolution is ongoing. We are evolving as a species to a kind of "species being". Not just in the practical-social sense described by Marx, but perhaps in a kind of evolutionary-cognitive sense. Our species has reached a tipping-point, as defined by the scope and scale of our mastery over our environment. Either we continue to evolve into a truly "human" species, a humane species, or we bring about our own extinction, as a mere consequence of having failed to achieve the ethical awareness necessary to adequately manage our own technology. — Pantagruel

The sense in which post-modernism is a reactionary response is really just its essential nature as part of a dialectical evolution. It can be seen as a variety of inversions of the rational and objective. The individual becomes decentered or pluralized.

Tom Storm

↪Pantagruel

Ok. I'm no expert but I tend to think of postmodernism as a more exciting, perhaps liberating way to examine matters, something that refreshes our dependence on any number of gods from the 'natural order' to the 'absolute concern'.

Pantagruel

↪Tom Storm

I think that is a hallmark of every social movement, that it casts itself as an answer to all big the questions, no? And the nature of the movement is what it considers those to be....

Tom Storm

I think that is a hallmark of every social movement, that it casts itself as an answer to all big the questions, no? — Pantagruel

Perhaps not. One of the threads within postmodernism (Rorty comes to mind) suggests that not only is there no definitive answer, but the very 'big questions' themselves are grounded in presuppositions built on quicksand. Is PM too dispirit to be classed as a social movement - is it not closer to a range of tendencies or frameworks for critiquing assumptions about grand narratives (to use that awful term)?

Pantagruel

↪Tom Storm

Yes, I view postmodernity as symptomatic of a more general set of social themes rather the the explicitly literary-artistic focused usage of postmodernism, which sounds more like what you are describing. Certainly in either case it supports a range of interpretations. Rejection of grand narratives isn't the same as saying there are no big questions though.

Tom Storm

↪Pantagruel

:up:

Pantagruel

↪Tom Storm

My take on postmodernity is more of a generalized socio-historical observation, not so much the theme as the context of Habermas' new book. The idea of critiquing grand narratives I would say relates more to the manifestation of the pluralistic and decentralized postmodern perspective to (what I would call the self-conscious phenomenon of) post-metaphysical thinking. And post-metaphysical thinking is the primary theme of the book.

If I had to comment on the idea of the rejection of grand narratives, I'd align that more with an ongoing failure to successfully integrate the critical element of the mythical, so what I would consider a defect of post-metaphysical thought. A self-conscious movement that denies what it is perhaps?

Tom Storm

↪Pantagruel

Nice. Well I consider postmodernism to be a huge subject with many tributaries and it would require considerable expertise to understand and critique it. I find much of what I have read about postmodernism sympathetic to my intuitions. I tend to hold human knowledge and beliefs are contingent products of culture, language and cognitive limitations and that we cannot transcend these to reach some putative 'really real' or 'ultimate realm'.

Pantagruel

we cannot transcend these to reach some putative 'really real' or 'ultimate realm'. — Tom Storm

But even if we cannot reach such a realm (pure objectivity) can we "aim" at such a realm, attempt to achieve an "objective" perspective? Is "communicative action" founded on the presupposition of objectivity? Maybe transcendence is not the goal, but the process.

Crises of Modernity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions