woops

is not like other people
what exactly is the difference? Ive just assumed post structuralism refers specific to a type of academic writing while post modernism is just the more broad term that, amongst other things , can be short hand for the era that contains post structuralist writers.
structuralism is a moment in linguistics defined by ferdinand de saussure's work. modernism is a wider movement in the arts. it gets blurry once you add a "post-" prefix
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I think we need a new language for this stuff. It doesn't make sense that nothing was modern until modernism, the term 'modern' itself is hundreds of years old.
I tend to think that modernism is the phase of enlightenment culture when secular thought started to prevail, vis a vis dogmatic theism, and that post-modernism is the phase of culture when this secular thought has been normalized.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
But yeah we have traces of modern culture strewn about history, likely centuries if not millennia before modernism proper. I tend of think of modernism proper gaining steam with Luther, the printing press, Galileo, becoming philosophically canonized by the likes of Descartes, etc.

And then over the following centuries, this kind of thinking became normalized, IE lost its novelty as contradistinguished against Catholic cosmological dogma. This normalization of secular values and epistemologies resets the stage for post-modern culture to gain momentum, although again there are still cases to be made for early instances of postmodern thought, IE artists and thinkers who personally "passed through" these phases philosophically, following some sublime avant-garde instinct, afforded by the ability to distance oneself from what is normalized around them, and contextualize it all within a larger development, in order to probe beyond it.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Of course, I'm really just talking about Christian culture here, rather than global.
 

woops

is not like other people
But yeah we have traces of modern culture strewn about history, likely centuries if not millennia before modernism proper. I tend of think of modernism proper gaining steam with Luther, the printing press, Galileo, becoming philosophically canonized by the likes of Descartes, etc.

And then over the following centuries, this kind of thinking became normalized, IE lost its novelty as contradistinguished against Catholic cosmological dogma. This normalization of secular values and epistemologies resets the stage for post-modern culture to gain momentum, although again there are still cases to be made for early instances of postmodern thought, IE artists and thinkers who personally "passed through" these phases philosophically, following some sublime avant-garde instinct, afforded by the ability to distance oneself from what is normalized around them, and contextualize it all within a larger development, in order to probe beyond it.
id differentiate between modernity and modernism
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
id differentiate between modernity and modernism
Modernity to me has more of a temporal connotation, indicating some contemporary setting, but that could just be me. I think the -ism in modernism denotes the sort of ideology and philosophy I'm talking about above.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Which I think is definitively secular, but again that could just be me. Even if we're talking about any sort of modernist exegesis of scripture, such would be defined by some acknowledgement of the scientific secularism, whether to refute it or reconcile with it.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Although maybe the movement away from theism is less definitive of modernism, and more the movement away from dogmatic worldviews. After all, the protestant reformation wasn't secular, but rather challenged dogma qua ecclesiastic authority, to my understanding.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Maybe a more general understanding of modernism, as a cultural quality, is this emphasis on the individual practicing some greater degree of sovereignty over their worldview, rather than everyone's worldview being homogenously determined by some central dogma, with deviance being punished.

In this sense, modernism is arguably more about individualism than secularism per se. And by extension, postmodernism would be the gradually succeeding cultural phase wherein individualism becomes normalized, IE cultural deviation takes individualism as a point of departure.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please

suspended

Well-known member
The only problem with the modern Left is it isn't postmodern enough. It pays lip service to social construction theory while naturalizing its own political projects as "inevitable" and "biological." It applies cultural relativism inconsistently and as convenient to its political ends.

A Left that took seriously Berger, Luckmann, Bourdieu, Foucault, Latour—this would be a Left I would get behind. A beautiful vision of the world. A vantage outside games, outside projects. An actualization of the original American pragmatism project.
 
Top