I’ve been hearing that metamodernism is the next stage in the march of history toward progress. Metamodernism will synthesise modernism and …
—– Thanks Philosophics! Great post.
The title of my Repost is a little tongue in cheek, but not really if you have been following my blog.
I suggest that Modernism and Post-modernism define the Modern Religion.
The simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is my approach. As a loose generality:
Modernity is definition.
Post modernity is deconstruction.
Of course there is more to them, but I think those two definitions, ironically, define the religion: through the definition I find ways that the definition is not sufficient. Thats it. Im not sure how any knowledge that we can call knowledge is not ordained and presented in that way.
Then: There is no more to a category of knowing and activity than those aspects. Together they constitute the Modern Being: identity and its concordat nothingness.
People just gotta do something to make a living. Meta modernity is it for intellectualism now, I guess.xxx
4 responses to “Is the Modern Religion making a name for itself? Metamodernism”
[…] Is the Modern Religion making a name for itself? Metamodernism […]
Thanks for the link, Lance.
I feel your title is spot on. My feeling is that Modernism envelops Enlightenment thinking, rejecting Premodern metaphysics; Postmodernism doesn’t reject both, but it questions and deconstructs both; Metamodernism seems to want to restore order and synthesise Modernism and Premodernism whilst claiming to sublate Modernism and Postmodernism and package it as a new religion.
I long ago dubbed once and future modernism “post*modernism” where “*” is the Kleene star of formal language theory.
I had to look it up. So your saying “post,post,post,post…modern”. 😄