What is (post)modernity?

[The Grey Man]

And new philosophy calls all in doubt,
The element of fire is quite put out,
The sun is lost, and th'earth, and no man's wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.

In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered...

My conjecture is that modernity is essentially a wound in the collective human psyche that opened up in the 17th century as a result of an explosion of our knowledge of nature. The Scientific Revolution caused a 'dissociation of sensibility' from the intellect whereby the world of visible and tangible things became divorced from the world of 'observables' which we can know only conceptually, by the application of mathematical formulae to the results of quantitative measurements. With the ascendancy of the Copernican hypothesis, the motion of the sun, the centrality of man in the cosmos became 'apparent', a consequence of the accidental position of the enigmatic 'observer', a ghostly residuum of the human person in the scientist's objective account of the solar system. Measurement became the sole point of contact between a world inhabited by ensouled bodies, in which tradition has meaning and the lilac a scent, and a world that consists only of numeric proportions.

The discovery of this new world was accompanied by the discovery of the burgeoning intellectual powers of man, which had made it possible. For a while, many of the leading minds of Europe thought that not only physics, but politics and religion could and should be transformed by the application of these powers: thus Kant preached 'religion within the bounds of mere reason' and an attempt was made, in 1789, to remake society according to the precepts of rationalistic philosophers. What the revolutionaries failed to realize is that the universal demand for rationality is not itself rational, that the demands of the revolution could ultimately be justified, if at all, by principles that transcend reason. Thus the reaction against rationalism, against the reformers' usurpation of the rights of tradition, and we call this reaction Romanticism. Both sides failed to realize that the conflict between reason and tradition was not necessary (in this regard, the voice of Kant's countryman J.G. Hamann was that of "one crying out in the wilderness").

Post-modernity is our despair of ever repairing this schism between the intellect and the sensibility, which has caused this hopeless, fratricidal war between rationalism and Romanticism. The only way past this despair is to overcome the psychic dis-integration of the 17th century by reconciling modern physics and traditional metaphysics.

 

[The Grey Man]

...I meant to put this in Philosophy, or Politics and History, but, it's tangentially related to science so what the heck.

I could have just as easily asked, What has happened to us since Gutenberg?

 

[Black Rose]

multiple views: Which ones are right?

Do only opinions exist or facts?

I have a model of the world and a self-model.

How I think things operate.

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

This is important to a.i. development.

Because what the a.i. believes will shape how it interacts with us.

Should it think the way I do or will it grow more intelligent than me?

What will it understand I don't?

Can it teach me to become smarter? Yes by my design.

All I need to do is build it. Then it can tell me what I don't know.

 

[scorpiomover]

Modernism (valuing what is "modern", what is "new") is an attitude that became very popular in the 1700s, that thanks to things like science and democracy, humans are only ever advancing forwards and never going backwards, and thus the only things we humans need to do is to learn and embrace the most modern science, the most modern technology and the most modern ethics.

WW1 and WW2 proved that democracy doesn't stop world wars, fascism, genocide, and that science is often used to do monstrous evil, and that major violations of the hypothesis that humans are only advancing occurred not just once, but twice, and so the hypothesis of modernity had been proved false.

Post-modernism was an attempt to critique Modernism, in order to fix the rot and save it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yeah very poetic.
But its not a wound.
Humanity was pretty vile from get go depending on context.

What new knowledge really means we have to re define our understanding of things.
Which means sometimes like paradigm shifts in understanding will force us to act as if the Sun is not a God, but just a ball of nuclear reactions, plasma, a faceless and nameless fireball that our planet orbits.
We could stick to the old ways, but if we do that means we have no way of knowing anything valuable.

As for post modernism, its a concept that tries to explain something.
First of all some things can not be explained completely.
Lots of things require us to work from incomplete information.
This is indeed problematic, but probably less traumatic for humans than letting vestigial poppycock define our existence and lead us to already predictable path that has played out a million times before in history such as war or famine etc.

Secondly even today our relationship with information has to be radically changed.
We see value in information only as in much as it can bring immediate value or capital gain.
This is true for everything including science, but science does not work well being subservient to money.

Facts are also problematic. Nietzsche says we have to honor that is physical.
Ergo nature. As nature is independent reality from social bullshit.
Nature does not care whether you live or die, whether you are good or bad, whether you are right or wrong.
Nature just is the way it is, without adding or subtracting anything.

As for humans we are just one of millions of off shoots of evolution that nature had.
We are new to the game of life.
From Earth perspective we are the noobs we are the llamas and we are alive for few million years and we think we rule.

As for social evolution its entirely independent of nature.
The problem with that the further form natural we go the closer we get to a point where we might end the evolution by killing humanity off.
So truth matters no matter what anyone thinks.

The only problem is that we humans don't know the truth.
We mostly operate on half truths, various kaleidoscopic truths.
A mosaic of information that has various quality.

For instance society has no logic.
The social order of things is just imposed on us whether we like it or not.
Logic requires us to know cause and effect.
Like in physics.
Without knowing cause and effect the information value is 0 or worse can kill us.

 

[Black Rose]

It can't be all cynicism and nihilism.

Science can't explain everything is a limited human perspective.
There is a reason for everything we just can't find.
But we can find certain things in our immediate location.
I did some computer programming so I know a little bit about it.
I put vinegar in baking soda, I know a little bit of chemistry.
I know where Iraq is on a map, I know geography.
I took physics in 7th grade, I know some things about cause and effect.

Can I hunt, no. Can I cook, mac and cheese yes. I cannot drive a car though.

Knowing everything is not the goal. Knowing what you can do is.

Society is just people, you can make people do what you want most of the time.

Because of incentives.

Like how I can buy pizza with little green papers.

I give the guy at the red building paper and I get to eat. simple.

As time goes by you learn the rules. And with science make something new.

The word modern was invented because things in the past did not change.

Now they do change and fast. In post-modernism, things would not change again.

I used to read the magazine popular science. But when the internet came along I did all my media on that. I don't watch tv or read much from paper materials. I like to run simulations on things. Collect data and do analysis.

I have to be selective in what I do learn though. Because everything wants my attention. The attention economy is what it's called now. I do not devote myself to a single framework. It is multivariant. Many streams. I compile it all and consolidate it.

If anything were are living in a cyberpunk reality.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It can't be all cynicism and nihilism.

You still don't seem to understand nihilism?
Its an philosophical outlook that says we can create value an nihilo. FROm nothing.
It never defines what value that is.
In theory you could even create nihilistic church of god, such as christian atheism.
Obviously Nietzsche goes onto rants where he tells people what is correct way of life, but thats the point of nihilism.
Nihilism in and of it self is just a framework for a specific outlook.

Cynicism is just For the Cynics, the purpose of life is to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people can gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which is natural for themselves, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, and fame, and even flouting conventions openly and derisively in public. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions.

 

[Black Rose]

You still don't seem to understand nihilism?
Its an philosophical outlook that says we can create value an nihilo. FROm nothing.

Nihilism in and of it self is just a framework for a specific outlook.

Nihilism = nothing

Nihilistic value = no values

Nihilistic religion = no religion

Nihilistic meaning = no meaning

-

Cynicism just means we are animals and nothing more.

Humanism says we are rational animals.

We have no foundation for meaning or rationality other than what is innate within nature hence natural science is the study of such things.

If we try to create meaning or rationality beyond nature we come to metaphysics.

Metaphysics says that something is foundational and extended beyond epistemic nihilism. But not humanism because that is still not beyond nature and relies on metaphysical assumptions. (Humans are rational and can find meaning).

Humanism assumes science is possible but why?

Science or Gnosis is something that humans can do but why?

Because animals can do science? what kind of animal?

epistemic nihilism translates to = science is impossible

But only if you accept it metaphysically.

I do not accept it, I believe science is possible. It is a metaphysical assumption but one where I reject nihilism as any foundation. Because ex nihilo = no foundation.

my assumption is that everything did not come from nothing but from something.

I am not saying this is true but only metaphysical.

I also do not believe the universe is only 5 minutes old. Or that God made everything so as to make evolution look true when it is not. Could this be the case? Maybe but I cannot base my epistemology on it.

What would a value even look like if it was created from nothing?

Give me an example? Some value that was not influenced by anything previously. Not parents, not culture, not even the physics we are in.

You may say some value came from a person who created something new never before seen on earth but then you have to assume that this value was a metaphysical creation from beyond nature. It entered this reality from the beyond from "the nothing". The world separate from this one. Then you would be a platonists.

So the divide is nature vs platonism and nihilism is a false idea.

Because any idea that exists is a possible idea, not an impossible one, it has a foundation and did not come from nothing. Coming from nothing is impossible. Either it can from nature or the platonic world of the possible but nothing comes from nothing. And something comes from something.

Again this is metaphysical. I am not saying you have to agree.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Nihilism = nothing

Nihilistic value = no values

Nihilistic religion = no religion

Nihilistic meaning = no meaning

No. Nietzsche cares about values and virtues. For a guy who wrote about Nietzsche you seem to imply he does not care about value.
Morals are the value. And Nietzsche wants values.
The nihilism you talk about seems to suggest a common social misconception.

Cynics are all about virtue as well.
They say man is not above nature, and social order makes people evil.
So virtuous person must be true to his nature.
Kynos is dog like meaning these people profess their value, by rejecting conventional take on virtues of common social order, instead trying to live inline with nature.
Its arguable that since cynics existed so long their philosophy has been a bit misunderstood. But from what little I see in wikipedia it does not correspond to common understanding of cynicism where that is often understood as negativity.
That being said cynics are like Christians in believing that man is inherently evil or sinful if he does not follow with nature.
The difference being Christians believe in God.
So Christianity is cynicism in way.

 

[Black Rose]

No. Nietzsche cares about values and virtues. For a guy who wrote about Nietzsche you seem to imply he does not care about value.
Morals are the value. And Nietzsche wants values.
The nihilism you talk about seems to suggest a common social misconception.

Nietzsche rejected nihilism because he rejected Christianity which he conflated with the values of nihilism.

Will to power is antichristian and thus anti-nihilism.

Nietzsche said once people reject Christianity people would become nihilists and lost and so such wars that have never been seen on earth would happen.

Then the ubermensch would arrive and destroy nihilism with a new value.

The value to replace God. Because God does not exist and believing in things that do not exist is nihilism.

The ubermensch's new value would be something that actually exists and thus be anti-nihilistic.

People think Nietzsche was a nihilist for the same reason they think nazis were ubermensch. The stupidity of the Untermensch. The antisemites loved it because of what his sister said not what Nietzsche was. (an Ni prophet)

 

[Black Rose]

Christianity = Nihilism

Nietzsche = not Christian

thus

Nietzsche = not a Nihilist

by his own standards

 

[ZenRaiden]

No. Nietzsche cares about values and virtues. For a guy who wrote about Nietzsche you seem to imply he does not care about value.
Morals are the value. And Nietzsche wants values.
The nihilism you talk about seems to suggest a common social misconception.

Nietzsche rejected nihilism because he rejected Christianity which he conflated with the values of nihilism.

Will to power is antichristian and thus anti-nihilism.

Nietzsche said once people reject Christianity people would become nihilists and lost and so such wars that have never been seen on earth would happen.

Then the ubermensch would arrive and destroy nihilism with a new value.

The value to replace God. Because God does not exist and believing in things that do not exist is nihilism.

The ubermensch's new value would be something that actually exists and thus be anti-nihilistic.

People think Nietzsche was a nihilist for the same reason they think nazis were ubermensch. The stupidity of the Untermensch. The antisemites loved it because of what his sister said not what Nietzsche was. (an Ni prophet)

Yes that is true.
Nietzsche was pessimist in regards to Christianity, but optimist in regards to humans. He basically believed in individual and his ability.