I believe that we have experienced modernism and postmodernism, with its deconstruction of values. Perhaps we are in the post post modern. The whole experience of self and authenticity was perceived by the moderns, ripped apart by the postmodernists, and we may, now, have to put all the meanings together again. When you query whether we were ever modern, perhaps the problem was that it never became a homeland but just a resting place and, now, may be the chance to juxtapose all different fragments of the broken down philosophies. Of course, we may all do this differently and it may be the end of a cycle, with a lot of disintegration in the aftermath of the post modern, on the brink off the post apocalyptic era.

can one say they are indifferent? — Warren

I think I am largely indifferent to this. Many categories are ineffable. I have no idea what modern is meant to mean. Is postmodernism simply hard modernism? Is sticking 'post' in front of something just a sign you have run out of ideas? Is modern the same thing as contemporary? Can a Buddhist monk in rural Thailand be modern; or do you have to be an ironic atheist working in IT in a big city? Is it situational, or is it a state of mind? Or is it simply a word; misused, abused, a usage in search of a meaning?

Roughly speaking:

'Modern' period - commenced with publication of Newton's Principia 1687.
'Post-modern' period - commenced with publication of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity 1915.

Modernity is characterised by the idea of progress, trust in science, confidence in civilized values, the idea of destiny.

Post-modernity is characterised by nihilism, distrust of meta-narratives, cultural relativism, rejection of universal values, a plurality of competing cultural and social constructs.

It's the context that defines what we mean by modernity. And oh boy, do we use modern/modernity/post-modern etc. in a huge scope of totally different issues and viewpoints.

I believe modernism and post-modernism always co-existed in an ongoing collective state of mind. One of the many natural balances of society. Just like in politics, one side's dialogue is louder than the other side and over time it will flip flop.

Some philosophers say we are still living in modernity, for some we are in post-modernity, some say we never modern. — Warren

A lot of good traditional stuff has been tossed out. We could use some of it back. Does that make me a reactionary?

Modernity is characterised by the idea of progress, trust in science, confidence in civilized values, the idea of destiny. — Wayfarer

I would also add skepticism about traditional culture and institutions. It's always seemed to me that modernity is a rejection of the past as much as it is confidence in the future.

'Modern' period - commenced with publication of Newton's Principia 1687.
'Post-modern' period - commenced with publication of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity 1915.

Modernity is characterised by the idea of progress, trust in science, confidence in civilized values, the idea of destiny.

Post-modernity is characterised by nihilism, distrust of meta-narratives, cultural relativism, rejection of universal values, a plurality of competing cultural and social constructs. — Wayfarer

This is certainly a standard academic construct of the ideas. I wasn't sure the OP was wanting to explore this side of the street, although maybe. Modernism wasn't optimistic for long. It may have begun this way but after World War One it became drenched in pessimism and ideas of absurdity, regress and doom. And Duchump's Fountain (1917 urinal sculpture) kind of anticipated the postmodern project and Tracy Emin by some years. Incidentally when you read Don Quixote 1605, you find a book that is like a post-modern pastiche, dripping with irony and self-reflexivity. It could almost be John Barth (except readable). I'm not confident that categories like this really work.

It may have begun this way but after World War One it became drenched in pessimism and ideas of absurdity, regress and doom. — Tom Storm

Hence my delimitation of 1915. I also think of Lewis Carroll as a portent of postmodernism. There are probably others. There are always overlaps and exceptions but think of it as an heuristic, that’s all.

I've always wanted to see Michael Freyn's play, Copenhagen. Apparently there's a very good BBC production of it, but I can't find it anywhere online. Reason being, I really mark the discovery of the uncertainty principle as an emblem of the post-modern period.

I would also add skepticism about traditional culture and institutions. — T Clark

Agree. Also the determination to break free of ecclesiastical domination, especially after the Wars of Religion.

I am modern, that is, committed to resisting the recurrences of pre-modern atavisms (periodically manifested in 'theo/auto/pluto-cratic anti-humanisms & populisms') while, in inclusive solidarity, improvising – theoretical, social-political, techological – 'alternatives' to the global neoliberal-corporatist status quo without succumbing to relativist / nihilist disillusionment (i.e. p0m0). Btw, this philosopher calls the shitshow status quo "compostmodernity".

:up: If you have any tips for the non academically inclined, let me know.

can one say they are indifferent? — Warren

If you are referred tho this quote as all of those who don’t want follow the masses in the modern era or post modern era, yes I guess there are a lot of people which can say they act indifferent towards modernity because they don’t like it all or they don’t want to.
Perhaps that’s they key of being indifferent.

'Post-modern' period - commenced with publication of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity 1915. — Wayfarer

[citation needed]

[Wayfarer, 2021, thephilosophyforum.com]

With many positions on modernity and the individual, can one say they are indifferent? Some philosophers say we are still living in modernity, for some we are in post-modernity, some say we were never modern. — Warren

Dear God.
I have never 'got' this 'post-modern' concept.
Just another label to hang on a picture or something...if you turn it round do you go back to the future ?
*sighs*

Always makes me think of 'Thoroughly Modern Millie' the musical, 1967.

In 1922 New York City, flapper Millie Dillmount is determined to find work as a stenographer to a wealthy businessman and then marry him – a "thoroughly modern" goal.

So, modern values or goals way back then.
Hmmm, I was going to say have changed - but then again...

Some things never change. Or if they do, they return full circle...with knobs on.
It depends on perspective. Doesn't it always.

I was taught that the motto of modernism was Ezra Pound's Make It New - this:

It's always seemed to me that modernity is a rejection of the past as much as it is confidence in the future. — T Clark

It has struck me for several years now how many people in the West seem fixated on a mawkish form of nostalgia. There's a prevailing view that things were better in the past. A Golden Age.

This sentiment fills the speeches of public officials, the plots of movies and longform TV and the comments on social media. People keep presenting the view that we have lost something, that we need to regain it. The new mansions built in my city are nostalgia structures - pretend Victorian or grotesque 18th century pastiches called French Provincials. There's the now mainstream hipster-lite aesthetic, a fetishisation of early 20th century workwear and an ardour for old school crafts and multifaceted 'authenticity'.

Politically, aesthetically and emotionally, no one seems to much like the present time, no one seems to praise the modern and most folk seem afraid of the post-modern and the future. People seem to be going for pre-modernism.

There's a prevailing view that things were better in the past. A Golden Age. — Tom Storm

Isn't that true of any generation ?
You call that music ? You call that dancing ?
In my day...

People seem to be going for pre-modernism. — Tom Storm

You what ? What people, where...?

I'm just describing what I see. If you don't see it, great. What do you see?

Isn't that true of any generation ?
You call that music ? You call that dancing ? — Amity

No question but generally old farts. I am hearing this from people too young to be able to look back - in their twenties.

A book called the Authenticity Hoax taps into this idea too. Andrew Potter.

You what ? What people, where...? — Amity

That was a joke - about people turning the clock back to before the modernist project, hence pre-modern.

"Tips" for what exactly?

I think that you are right that people are going back to the idea of the premodern? I am inclined to think that postmodernism was extremely useful as a basis for exploring the whole way our thinking is constructed. However, perhaps it went too far and led to the whole collapse of meaning and the rise of 'post truth'. I think that we need more synthetic thinking which can establish important links between ideas, rather than just a return to the premodern. Here, I am suggesting that even though postmodernism comes with potential problems, in that it can give rise to a collapse of values, the insights of modernity and postmodernism are important for enabling critical analysis.

I am inclined to think that postmodernism was extremely useful as a basis for exploring the whole way our thinking is constructed. — Jack Cummins

I beg to differ, Jack. When was it ever not 'modern' to examine, critique & thereby develop how "our thinking is constructed". At best, p0m0 has always seemed to me nothing but a redundant, clown-show – a dada-like bit of rhetorical kitsch parodying a witches' brew of hellenic skepticism, apologetic fideism, berkleyan idealism, nietzschean perspectivism, russian nihilism, jamesian pluralism, etc – which, occasionally amusing in a tedious sorta way, is philosophically DOA. To be modern, it seems to me, is to always be engaged in a self-reflective subversive 'praxis' (i.e. "rebellion" "critique" "inquiry") that deconstructs the status quo by (re)constructing 'viable' alternatives, or exits (like e.g. hellenic cynics & epicureans; renaissance humanists; enlightenment deists & mechanists; russian anarchists & anglo-american fallibilists; post-war existentialists & absurdists; jazzists, surrealists & abstract expressionists; libertarian socialists & deep ecologists; etc).

When was it ever not 'modern' to examine, critique & thereby develop how "our thinking is constructed". At best, p0m0 has always seemed to me nothing but a redundant, clown-show – a dada-like bit of rhetorical kitsch parodying a witches' brew of hellenic skepticism, apologetic fideism, berkleyan idealism, nietzschean perspectivism, russian nihilism, jamesian pluralism, etc – which, occasionally amusing in a tedious sorta way, is philosophically DOA. — 180 Proof

:smile:
I do wish I had your way with words and a smidgeon of your knowledge of philosophical isms.

"compostmodernity". — 180 Proof

Hilarious. Have to use that term when referring to the present day ludicrous compostmodernism.

No question but generally old farts. I am hearing this from people too young to be able to look back - in their twenties. — Tom Storm

Some of the old farts of today were the blowing-in-the-wind youth of yesteryear. The concerns pretty much the same as the young have today. A universal song for the human race to love and not hate.
Freedom. And so on...

What kind of things are people in their 20's saying about whose past; their own or their parents ?
There's a lot of envy out there...and anger about e.g. baby boomers and any other group of disparate people who lived in different parts of the world during whole chunks of years, decades.

Generalisations and divisions play into the feeling of being hard done by.
Politicians love this...and they are the ones who play a major role in what is available to any of us, regarding a better life. The constraints, the decisions to go to war, freedom of movement...

I am a modernist. Capitalism can still save itself; and continue to grow into the future. I just don't know if it will save itself; so it's difficult to orient oneself with regard to a belief in progress.

The potential is there: we have the knowledge, the technology, the industrial capacity, the skills, to plug into the planet for energy; use that energy to provide limitless clean electrical power, hydrogen fuel, capture and sequester carbon, desalinate and irrigate, recycle, and so on.

It is possible that the dream of modernity could be fulfilled; and the failure of modernity is too horrific to contemplate!

In face of the climate and ecological crisis, I say we go for it; meet the challenge head on and overcome it. The energy is there in the molten interior of the planet - more energy than we could ever put a dent in, no matter how lavishly it was spent to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

:blush:

:up:

Bruno Latour posits that we have never been modern. Although there are hybrids of nature and culture –non-human and human, object and subject– and quasi-objects, modernity prefers to purify nature and society as distinct. Latour argues that there have always been hybridizations and quasi-objects in history.

Although Latour makes a case within the anthropological and ontological lens, a case can be made for being modern based on technological advancements and their effects on our epistemologies. One should look at the word modernity synchronically, not diachronically. With a shift in the late twentieth century, the computer has been steadily augmenting our brains. We are, to an extent, a cyborg with human and artificial intelligence intertwined in the form of mutualism. One can argue that we are in a post-modern era based on the digital age and its various disconnection to nature and society or altering society’s perception of reality. Jean Baudrillard introduces the concept of hyperreal postmodernism as a reflection of our time. He supports the idea of productive modernity as a successor of symbolic premodernity. I am not sure how that fits in with a Buddist in rural Thailand.

Tips for resisting the recurrences of pre-modern atavisms.

Bruno Latour posits that we have never been modern. Although there are hybrids of nature and culture –non-human and human, object and subject– and quasi-objects, modernity prefers to purify nature and society as distinct. Latour argues that there have always been hybridizations and quasi-objects in history. — Warren

That definitely sounds like Bruno Latour, the compostmodernist. :grin: