Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by your last sentence. Could you elaborate a bit further?

As for my own opinion on post-modernity, I see it as both a relatively elitist intellectual discourse (which I am not dismissing however), as well as a fitting marker for the changing nature of western societies, away from "mass" society, ie. mass communication, mass production, top down control, etc.

by Trond Ove on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 05:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry I was being intentionally cryptic. What I had in mind is that there is nothing new in the discourse of "post-modernity": German philosophy had gone through all of that before Hegel. In fact, Hegel's philosophy was a response to precisely those problems that are now described as "post-modernity".

Anglophone philosophy was never able to provide a response to modernity that satisfies human beings' spiritual needs. Unfortunately, with World War I, British intellectuals (Bertrand Russell most influentially) rejected the only philosophy that was able to provide an adequate response—German idealism—even though before the war, German philosophy was very influential in Britain. (Russell was initially a Hegelian.) That's what I was getting at.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Sat Jan 13th, 2007 at 05:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series