The premise is essentially correct as far as it goes: i.e. the "Enlightenment" (or Modernity) is preferable both to 2/?
-
-
postmodernism and premodernism as you term them but you gloss over the deep fundamental problems of Modernity, especially 3/?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
saying that it reduces the power of the ruling class. Given the oligarchic nature of things that is either laughable, sad, or sinister 4/?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's a good attack on pre/postmodernism but fails as a defense of Modernity (which is certainly suboptimal at the least) 5/?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
& I would rather see thought about how we move beyond Modernity. Regarding the rhetoric there were just far too many "writerly" 6/?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
phrases that contributed to the word count but not the argument. As I said, it is a valuable argument and read but neither goes 7/?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
far enough nor in the right direction & could have stood some stylistic editing. But folks should read it anyway. 8/8
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not on board w this criticism; 'Modernity' as defined is compatible with flawed history in how it is expressed at society-level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CColose @gm_palmer and
It is simply a socially agreed on approach to how a healthy society functions (e.g., science over "hunt the witches").
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CColose @gm_palmer and
In that sense, not sure we need to "move beyond modernity." It allows for evolution as a mechanism.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I don't want to move beyond modernity, obviously. Just learn from its mistakes and do better. It's served us well.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.